Quote from: brg444 on May 30, 2017, 05:51:32 AM

Huh. This is a funny thread. Let me chime in.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 28, 2017, 07:19:45 AM

But on top of that, miners are locked up into a Nash equilibrium of steady-state. It is not simple for them to leave the existing consensus unless they can be in a cartel and decide upon something.

And what exactly locks them up into this equilibrium?

The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it. So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

Quote

Quote from: dinofelis on May 28, 2017, 07:19:45 AM

Core was the central authority until a few years ago, writing the only code out there. So there was no game theory, it was a totally centralized system until recently. The only "game-theoretical" aspect that was in there for miners, was the signalling system, which was essentially Core taking the lead in the cartel formation. And ONLY miners voted on signalling. In other words, Core being the software monopolist, had total power over the rules.

So had Core released a version with a 1000 BTC block subsidy everyone would have followed along?

Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is. Miners might be divided over the question, though. Core could only have pulled that trick if it had build obsolescence in its previous version so that people would have been forced to upgrade (like monero does: hard forks are programmed in advance: you simply cannot continue to run the old version, it has a limit to it).

Of course, the pressure would maybe be great to break the software monopoly (like now, with segwit). But as long as Core would hold the monopoly, there wouldn't be much discussion about what to do.

Quote

On one hand you propose that miners are kings and rulers, disparage the role of validating nodes but then suggest that the economic actors have a choice of whether or not to follow miners.

Yes, because "validating nodes" and "economic actors" have nothing to do with one another.

Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement. Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges. Different beasts all together. Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.