I don’t agree both sides do it to nearly the same degree

gestures at everything

Mhhmm yeah. If you don’t see both sides being equally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you’re blinded by bias for one of those teams.

Yeah, hot take for Lemmy. But absolutely true.

Indeed! You just described US politics also. Both sides!

There’s no information, it’s fud, bitly links in text in a graphic. That’s why I did. This post is garbage.

It’s no different. A new version of the consensus code needs written and deployed.

That page you linked is the same on all chains. All have a proposal, discussion, implementation, waiting period (for code to be deployed), and activation. That’s just blockchain 101

Tezos would still require all nodes to upgrade to the code which contains the new algorithm. It can’t just automatically know what the new code is. It then can schedule these to activate at a certain block using a signaling system of some sort. If some nodes didn’t upgrade, this would cause a hard fork if the version they are running doesn’t have the new version required to run the new algorithm

Its behavior and process as outlined in the link you sent is no different from other chains.

Bitcoin uses version bits to perform these types of upgrades (see bip 9 implemented in 2016)

Ethereum uses something similar. Solana’s activation mechanism is called “feature gate activation”.

It’s the same with all the chains. An algorithm change is a breaking change. If you don’t implement it, your validating node will not continue with the rest.

Bitcoin has the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process. BIP-52 is an example of a proposal to change the algorithm due to energy concerns.

If the humans reach consensus it will change. However, I maintain that software can’t be programmed to adjust for social concerns - the humans have to change it.

lol it can’t adjust on public approval. It’s software that runs. It’s valuable. If it wasn’t, people wouldn’t run it.

It can hard fork with a consensus mechanism change anytime someone writes one and people decide it’s the best path forward. Ethereum decided this and did this.

That’s not happening with Bitcoin because those that understand how it works agree it’s the best system to use.

I use Bitcoin as a store of value, and Solana for day to day stuff and financial investments like lending and liq providing. That’s my preference, for now. It’s a very fluid industry, nothing is set in stone, although Bitcoin appears to be pretty solidly the preferred secure store of value.

It’s a good example that illustrate why automated systems shouldn’t be left running unsupervised, even if it’s designed by the best minds with the best of intentions.

The network is constantly supervised and mining is a competitive business. The network was built to adjust, and is working precisely as intended.