BU supporters' understanding of consensus systems in general is completely wrong, not just decentralised ones. I don't know why; it's a simple concept: it means that several independent implementations of a program given the same input data will give the same output, and those that give different results will automatically be known to be wrong. In the specific case of Bitcoin, it means that given multiple conflicting transaction chains, of which only one of them can be valid, all Bitcoin nodes everywhere will always agree on which chain is valid.
BU's so-called "emergent consensus" is not a consensus system of any kind. It explicitly allows nodes to disagree on which of multiple conflicting chains is valid, and it's trivial for malicious miners to force a chain split among disagreeing nodes to allow double-spending. It's not even fair to call this an "attack" since this catastrophic breakdown of consensus is by design. Anyone supporting BU deserves to lose their coins, and I think they're likely to.
Unsurprisingly, this post was completely ignored because... BU's so-called "emergent consensus" is not a consensus system of any kind. It explicitly allows nodes to disagree on which of multiple conflicting chains is valid, and it's trivial for malicious miners to force a chain split among disagreeing nodes to allow double-spending. It's not even fair to call this an "attack" since this catastrophic breakdown of consensus is by design. Anyone supporting BU deserves to lose their coins, and I think they're likely to.
I'm just going to state that it's well written and summarized. I'm looking forward to see how someone is going to attempt to refute it with pseudo-science.show me the simulations you ran..
show me your stats, facts, data
oh right you just read something that did not exceed your 3 paragraph attention span (2 minute) and deemed it law because it looked "well written"
when you gain post third grade ability to read something more than 2 minutes. try learning something
https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/emergent-consensus-simulations-99604190fa31#.4gjxzruv0
altcoins are not created in emergent consensus. what occurs is the ORPHAN mechanism sorts out which path the majority of nodes follow.
ofcourse its going to cause orphan drama. but what you may also realise is that merchants will become weary of this around the time of an 'activation' event and take precautions to raise the 'wait for X confirm' level.
end result is if the minority is the small block size they are simply left unsynced.
end result is if the minority is the higher block size they are simply fall back to the small blocksize.
because the higher blocksize acceptors can also accept small blocksizes (remember the rule for blocksize is anything below x)
again for emphasis, no altcoin is created.
FTFY
