Bitcoin Consensus Rules Questioned by Ripple CTO

David Schwartz, the Chief Technology Officer of Ripple, has raised a point that has drawn attention to the process of centralizing the Bitcoin (BTC) hash power. With his intervention, Schwartz challenges the conventional wisdom that it is the majority of hash power that determines who gets to control the name “Bitcoin.” Responding to tweets, he not only questions the understanding but goes on to raise a fresh question, the one about the authority to define what is popularly known as Bitcoin.

Ripple CTO questioned whether a rational user would blindly accept whatever is called BTC, regardless of its qualities, honesty, or integrity. Schwartz emphasized the importance of distinguishing between what is labeled as Bitcoin and what users actually desire, suggesting that the former does not necessarily align with the latter’s preferences.

Role of Hash Power in Bitcoin Consensus

Hash power, the computational power used for mining and confirming transactions on the Bitcoin network, has long been seen as a key factor responsible for consensus. The Nakamoto consensus, the basis of the BTC network, uses the longest chain rule, which says that the chain with the most computing time is the legitimate one. This principle has served the integrity and security of the BTC network since day one.

Schwartz’s criticism raises the question of the level to which hash power actually authorizes the building of the Bitcoin identity. He gives an example of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork from 2017, where he claims that rational users did not immediately choose the team that claimed to retain the “Bitcoin” name after the fork. This goes against the idea that the majority of hash power dominantly defines the true essence of Bitcoin.

Examining Rational User Behavior in BTC Ecosystem

Schwartz’s intrusion into this type of operation gives rise to a reevaluation of user behavior within the BTC system. Providing an argument that adherents of Bitcoin could simply have labeled it by sticking “Bitcoin” without being able to be sure whether users blindly hold that on just the mere fact that those did not have any underlying principle or quality, not only has he made the case of the network governance, and also fellow users called for the reconsidering. Through this talk, it is shown that the more complex aspects of choice influence the Selection of Bitcoins and resistance to the network.

Read Also: Hong Kong’s Securities Association Tips Authorities On Crypto Self-Regulation