Bitcoin Forum

I calculated the amount of miners who successfully created a block in the past 2016 period.

The amount was only 31 of possible 2016.

With more laws and regulations coming, the possible censorship of transactions of specific addresses is very likely.

Its very likely to see that there will be a system where law enforcement in cooperation with blockchain analyses firms, can send in a matter of seconds a black list via a jurisditcion order which forces all the current active miners to censor that specific address.  

Bitcoin is not censorship resistant and never will be. The same with bitcoin cash and every other forked from the original bitcoin blockchain.

Reasons why miners can't hide:

Today's mining is a very competitive industry. It went industrial. Almost every big mining operation from solo farms to mining pools are registered companies. Which already puts them under every active law and will put them under new ones. And a mining business will accept every new law because stopping their mining operation will cause them hundreds of millions of loses.

Mining in the shadows is not possible because you can't hide a big mining facility (electricity, storage etc.). You also can't hide a oil refinery.

For almost nothing (a few dollars) you can track and monitor the whole bitcoin network. Because there are currently about 30 of 2016 possible 2016 miners. Also 2016 would be nothing.

The monitoring and regulation of worldwide max. 2016 mining operations (probably way less) is for every government and law enforcement agency the easiest thing to do due to bitcoins structure and transparency.

The reason why miners will NEVER connect and send blocks via TOR is the simple fact that they would be so slow that their turnover would decrease by 15-20%. Like every other big billion dollar industrial sector the profit will be around 2-4%. So with that again, millions of dollars of loses.

The reason why monero is under heat and gets delisted is because its not compatible with current active laws. Its anonymous and not transparent.  

The transparency of bitcoin is very important.

The economic factors and its compatibility with law is what secures bitcoin. Not cryptography.

---

EDIT:
This post just shows how things are. I wrote it in a neutral perspective. I don't that say that those things are good or things should go that way. 

As in the number of unique pools?

---

Deliberate censorship of selected transactions involves a 51% attack which has serious economic repercussion to Bitcoin. Keeping that in mind, for miners who has invested millions of dollars into their own mining farms, will they execute a 51% attack to prevent confirmations of certain transactions to comply with the local regulations? Highly doubt so, by the fact that most of them hold a substantial amount of Bitcoins and their ASICs are worthless once this happens.

You are also measuring the number of unique entities by the number of (known) pools which has possibly thousands of different miners located in geographically diversed locations. Tracking each and every of them will be difficult and you cannot monitor the entire network as well.

31 different addresses. I would have to monitor the network which would result in the same result. Miners could use for every transaction a different address which would be useless. You can still monitor the network and get the exact amount of different miners and which addresses is owned by who.


The miner just doesn't include a specific transaction. And if their are worldwide similar laws which forces every miner to do so then you don't need a 51% attack. I also can't agree on the economic part.


But all those thousands of mining devices are connected to a central mining pool. Which is as said a registered company, which has to follow every law and of which you can monitor his whole activity on the bitcoin network. When there's no mining pool server to connect to, then your local home miner is useless. There's no single reason why some daily workers with their home mining devices and large mining operations should start some "rebellious" actions.

This is pure non-sense.
Firstly, censorship-resistance ensures that protocol rules that govern how the network works are set in advance and can’t be retroactively altered to comply with a desired agenda, whatever it may be.
Secondly, there's no entity behind bitcoin hence you can't ask anyone to shut it down, roll back the blockchain, avoid others to transact and such.
Lastly, chances of a 51% attacks are so slim that only fools would go about that.

How do you monitor the network? If you use a different address per block and choose not to put any identifying information into the Coinbase, there is no way to track.

Which requires a majority, AKA. 51% attack. Censoring a transaction entails the fact that those transactions will never be confirmed, which means that you'll have to do a block re-org at some point to ensure that you will invalidate blocks from miners which don't have to follow the censorship regulations. It is impossible for the said enacted laws to be enforced worldwide. Certain countries has constitutional rights against censorship which would hold water in court.

How would you repurpose your million dollar ASIC farms after some local regulation forces you to attack Bitcoin. Censorships can be obvious, it's easy to monitor the network and realize that certain transactions with a high fees are not getting mined.  Do you sell your ASIC to someone else? Because your ASICs are certainly no longer profitable, all to comply with some local regulations. Not sure about the legality of the regulations in the first place.

Pools are not the only way to mine. P2Pool for example allows all to host their own pool which cannot be censored because it'll be decentralized. Solomining is still a thing with older hardware. Pools helps to mitigate the huge variations in mining income but it doesn't mean you absolutely have to mine with the pools.

Looks like you haven't read my post at all  ;)

Like I said in my origin post miners won't use TOR to hide their internet connection. The bitcoin network is public. They can be only 2016 miners which are so easy to monitor which a usual home computer. You can track the location with a ip address as a normal person. And as a law enforcement agency even further. When a mining operation is a registered businnes with a huge facility then its no problem to get their ip address as a government or law enforcement.


In my origin post I referred to law enforcement agencies. Which are going after criminals. So I'm not referring to transactions from daily people. Please name me one constitution which protects criminals?


If the government of the country of your mining operation location is doing things like that then its your problem. A country with a democracy doesn't do something like that. So when your setting up a huge mining facility in country's like Iran you have to realize and accept the possible risk.  


I knew that you would come with P2Pool. I should have write about it earlier. The same problems as described in my origin post affect them.

You're right, and I agree with you that there is no incentive for miners to get together and conspire a 51% attack. All their hard work and hardware investment will have been for nothing. It is highly unlikely that miners even know each other much when there are thousands of them (even companies) all over the world. It just doesn't make sense for the future of BTC or crypto which they're heavily invested in.

Why are you all talking about 51% Attacks? And why using the words like conspire? Please read my origin post.

And what can you do with a jurisdiction order? can you paste the juridisction order ID in electrum and get the bitcoin from miners?

Jurisdiction order are worthless in the blockchain. This is one reason why it is censorship resistant.

Additionally, even if all miners have their past addresses black listed, they could just create new ones, for free.

As for the old ones, which are blacklisted, just sent the BTC from those addresses to a mixer and the coins will be anonymous again.

There can only be a maximum of 2016 blocks in a difficulty period. There are certainly more than 2016 miners. Can you get the IP of this block? 00000000000000000000ce9a189699570401c2503524b690aa92f6fedd9dcf59. Without looking at the information being put in the Coinbase of course. I don't dispute that large mining operations are difficult to uncover, that's pretty obvious.

Certainly hope there isn't any! Having effective legislation is difficult enough, but having similar policies across all the countries worldwide? That is the point, I don't see it being possible for every government in the world to collectively agree on and decide to force miners to do something they want.

No. What do you do after the price crashes when people realizes that miners are actively censoring transactions? You've mentioned that Bitcoin functions on game theory and I agree completely with that. So what happens then?

How? Is it easy to ban all the IPs running P2Pool? It is easy to solomine as well.

---

I maintain that an effective censorship IS a majority attack on the network.

[quote author=bitmover link=topic=5315341.msg56290270#msg56290270 date=1612702752
And what can you do with a jurisdiction order? can you paste the juridisction order ID in electrum and get the bitcoin from miners?
[/quote]

An unnecessary testy statement. Please think before posting.


Don't get that, sorry. I never said something like miners get their addresses blacklisted. If you mean a miner gets black listed from the rest of the network please read my posts above about network monitoring answering things like "just put a other address into coinbase".

[quote author=bitmover link=topic=5315341.msg56290270#msg56290270 date=1612702752
As for the old ones, which are blacklisted, just sent the BTC from those addresses to a mixer and the coins will be anonymous again.
[/quote]

You can't send bitcoins to anywhere if your addresses is blacklisted and will never get confirmed.

Yes there could be ten of thousands trying to mine. But you can only call yourself a miner when you mined a block in that difficulty period. So all the others who don't in that difficulty period are not a miner even if they run millions of mining devices. And if every mining operation has to be a registered company (large facility or mining pool, not local home machine) they also have to follow the rules. If 30 or 1 Million have to follow the rules doesn't change anything.


I agree that it is indeed difficult. There will never by where all countries agree or have the same law with every single line the same. But overall it will be similar. Most countries have similar regulations and rules on running a legit cannabis production or trade company. In every beginning of every new industry the laws and regulations are not the same as after a period of time. I don't say miners have to blacklist a specific transaction tomorrow. It could take years.


I know what you saying but you have to look out there. A PayPal user for example (or average user) doesn't stop using it because some funds are got frozen from some criminal or accidentally from a normal user. Even if there would be huge headlines. The reality is that they don't even care. PayPal works. That's what people care about. If they hold your private keys and you can't access them? People don't care. Not just because they don't know how bitcoin works.

A bit off topic : That's why in general many apps from very good programmers which are better than existing ones but don't go to the masses because they don't think how an average consumer works and thinks and the app is to complicated or many other reasons.

See my post about the lightning network:

1 - 2. No miner is not online 24/7. No mining pool or large mining facility can do that. That would kill their business. And please read my origin post carefully, I don't about talk about simple nodes running on a raspberry pi. Also a node is not a miner.
Every miner tries to connect to everyone on the bitcoin network and get every transactions. That a miner doesn't have a specific transaction in his mempool is very unlikely. And if so he could just ask some of his peers.
3. That's exactly how bitcoin is today so I don't know what you want to say with that.

We've already seen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5310508.0) pools that are volunteering to be regulatory-compliant.  I guess we'll see how successful/unsuccessful those are before we worry about the theoretical threat from forced compliance.  If push came to shove, I could see temporary pools forming and disbanding on a regular basis to play a game of whack-a-mole with law enforcement.

The network is decentralized, nobody has the power to "blacklist" an address the way you are talking about.

If 10 mining pools decide to blacklist an address,  there would be still about 10 pools mining blocks everyday. Soon some pool would confirme that transaction , as it is valid. This is why bitcoin is censorship resistant,  nobody controls it .

That's not a definition I agree with but I don't think that's very relevant here. Pools do not have to be regulated or registered. Anyone can run a pool, public or private and it's very easy to be able to make it hard to detect. Not through Tor or any VPN connection. SSL with stratum on a non-public pool with the shares being submitted to a different server that is used to broadcast the blocks makes it practically impossible to detect.
Yes. But the truth is people still cares. Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant in mind; breaking this tenet will inevitably make people lose trust in it. The scenario is not an Apples to Apples comparison. Truth is, there are loads of people that use Bitcoin to protect their privacy, to circumvent payment restrictions. If there are any signs of any government control over Bitcoin, I'm certain that the price would immediately crash and perhaps never return as people search for alternatives.

Blockchain censorship via majority has been known for a long time, it basically comes to whether all the governments in the world would be able to cooperate to enforce such thing. For example, a lot of hash power is still in China, and China will refuse to blacklist adresses of its allies like North Korea or Venezuela if Western powers would demand it.

Since miners are the only nodes who can 'earn' the powerful write access to build on top of the existing longest block-chain database and that is in a very hot competition with other miners to earn real physical money (pay bills in real world)  - yes, there is a natural limit for such nodes as everywhere and models like pareto distribution fits to that quite ok

Also they need to have selective / low latency connections to other miners to push their new blocks in case of any success / new block - so either push out own  new block that others confirm it by mining on top (only than you final own it)  or get (bad) info quickly that update happend >> start mining new!


The dynamics of that very interesing process should be modelled in some PhD works for stochastic processes in open dissipative dynamic systems having strict natural / consensus border conditions - sounds great fun :)   More fun: I expect any other read / 'relay' node (not mining / writing granted) will slow down miners ...

 ;D 

I'm not an expert,but here's my hypothesis.I might be wrong.
If a miner or a group of miners decides to block transactions for their own benefit(or to comply with regulations or government will),then the majority of developers and users inside the Bitcoin Core network will just hardfork and split the BTC core blockchain,leaving all those miners with worthless forked pseudo-Bitcoin shitcoins and no market support.
The Bitcoin community is more flexible and adaptive than you think.I don't get your point of asking a question that has been discussed 100 times before on the forum.Just search for some old threads about this topic,instead of creating your thread.

I decided to dig into this subject a little more.

I looked into an Antonopoulos video exactly about this subject  here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNA6s4Z78vw)

Begins at 34minutes.

He explains that to consistently block transaction from an address there should have been a group of miners with 51% hash power. Those miners would need to refuse to add transactions from those addresses AND to orphan blocks that include transactions from that addresses. This would be litteraly a 51% attack, coordinate globally.

So, practically impossible.

To summary:


I think you should watch it.

Bigger miners are just ... big and therefore need to follow any regulation to lower ANY risks

Just think from their side, running business, need banks and electricity and ppl and ....

There are only 3-4 miners that big - just enough to decide on what's needed

No regulation can force a miner to control what other miners do.

You are saying that a supposed regulation, which doesn't exist, that would force miners to orphan blocks which contain transactions not mined by them. You are basically saying that a regulation would force miners to make a 51% attack on the network, which they can't do because they do not have the hash power.

Based on that supposed regulation which doesn't exist, a mining centralization of 4 miners which also doesn't exist, you are saying that bitcoin is not censorship resistant...

You two are just spreading misinformation, or talking about things you don't fully understand.


Even if the majority of the 4 biggest mining pools decided to blacklist an address they would need to have 51% of hashpower (but they wouldn't, because small miners would move their hashrate to another pool).
 2 other big pools could mine 2 subsequent blocks with that "blacklisted" addresses transaction.

Then the 4 mining pools would be 2 blocks behind, in the shortest chain. They would have to outpace the longest chain, creating a parallel blockchain, competing with the rest of the network. This would literally be an attempt to do a 51% attack, but miners would be slowing move their hashpower to the longest chain, as they wouldn't like to lose money in the shortest chain...

That odds of that to happen are very low. Basically for nothing, as no regulation could do anything against those miners as they didn't mine the block containing the blacklisted address. (also, that regulation doesn't even exist)

I believe it should've been
Anonymous and Transparent. Users could be anonymous if they choose to. Anonymity is a Right as long as the Anonymous Users can always be tracked whenever serious crime is committed by them.

In regards to Bitcoin not being Censorship Resistant due to the reason given, I think if the mining/consensus hardware are portable, mobile and easy to carry around, that will greatly contribute/improve its Censorship resistant feature, as it was meant to be by Satoshi. Bitcoin is meant to be very Censorship Resistant... The censorship resistant feature can be improved and maintained if the users insist on well decentralized participation on the network. The Network, Nodes/mining,  Network Consensus, Software , Regulations , etc should be well decentralized, anonymity-friendly/privacy-friendly, very transparent, etc

That's the problem with all those raspberry pi nodes. They don't affect the network in any way, besides making it just slower. Blockchains in general should not be designed to run on a desktop pc and certainly not on a raspberry pi. Full nodes (mining) should only run by people or companies who can afford the big infrastructure. Doesn't matter if mining pool or mining facility. That's why the 1MB block size limit of BTC is the worst thing you can do. 1MB blocks just that some people can run them on their small device and think their now a "rebel" or something similar. I don't want small nodes who only damage the network. I want big miner who mine terabyte blocks.

Since the beginning of bitcoin not even a hundred different people/organizations mined a block. So there were never more than 100 miners since 2008.

Today its about 30. And that is mining centralization. And that's a good thing, and not a bad thing at all. The cost of mining and the cost of million dollar infrastructure which makes it to expensive to cheat makes bitcoin secure. The bitcoin network is secured by economic, and not by cryptography.

RPi nodes are generally still a net positive to the network. Having more nodes will increase redundancy and bring about a greater decentralization. It doesn't make it slower; block validation or transaction validation are sufficiently fast for RPi. The main bottleneck that they experience is with their own synchronization which is perceived to be fairly slow. With the current relaying system in Bitcoin Core, you don't actually have to do a full validation before sending the blocks provided that both connected nodes are operating in high bandwidth mode.
I want to be able to verify the transactions and the blocks fully and not be in the mercy of people who wield the power to do anything they want. Running a full node doesn't necessarily require you to mine and by definition a full node is not [necessarily] a mining node. 1MB blocks ensures that people doesn't have to trust someone else and can validate everything for themselves.
If you're counting the thousands of miners who are connecting to a pool to mine then sure. I'm not sure about your first statement; there are certainly more than a hundred that has ever mined a block. The whitepaper actually mentions about the game theory behind this, so it's really nothing new.

---

I've interacted with you for quite a few times and I can't help but think that there is some ulterior motives behind the posts and the assertions that you're making.

Economics solves that - over time

Bitcoin has very nice game theo setup - I m not the big master in such and was told it's not a Nash Equi, rather some leader / big miner driven - with only local equilibriums (like thermo dynamics at lower / finite scale)

We've seen US + EU + ... have been able to shut down global online gaming around 2005 -> why there is a poker client in original Satoshi code ....

same for Liberty Reserve little after


same as ... lot's of other things also Bitcoin related


We just haven't see it yet, this year getting interesting tho

(and why ETH wants PoS now ...)

Just so I've got this straight...

You constantly advocate a pro-regulation stance when it comes to crypto.  Then you talk about resistance to regulatory shutdown as though unregulated networks are easier to shut down than regulated ones?

How do you not comprehend the part where, if you work together alongside regulators, they decide if or when to pull the plug?  They'll know exactly how to do it because you'll have told them.  They will know how it works and where the 'off' button is.  Libra/whatever-it's-called-now still hasn't left the drawing board because they haven't got the approval they need from the bureaucrats.

If Bitcoin hadn't been launched as a permissionless project, if it had sought approval from those in charge before being unleashed unto the world, none of us would even be here having this conversation.  So stop trying to turn every single topic into "regulation is good because my fraudulent cult leader said so".

That block validation is sufficiently fast for Raspberry pi is how it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if 1000 nodes are running besides the miners. If all the miners go down, you're small nodes are worth, as before, nothing. But due to economic miners won't go down. Miners want to be connect to miners. And not with some small nodes. Just because of those worthless nodes we have this whole headache with block size debates and even worse SegWit which made everything more complicated.
If bitcoin would be how it should be, things like "Hard Forks" wouldn't exists. Miners can't allow them self to not upgrade and mine on a alternative blockchain which makes them lose millions. See more below.
At the SegWit soft fork the Bitcoin Core developers needed at least 95% support from the miners. Without surprise they got 100%. The same result you would get on block size adjusting. They would follow. They have to follow.

Hard Forks don't exists. It just exists because of protecting nodes, who don't do anything, from nothing.
If the block size adjusts and some small nodes hard forks or goes down, nobody should or has to care. It would be even good. The real people who protect and make bitcoin secure, the miners, are up and running.


I respect that you want to validate yourself. The thing is you don't need to. You also are not giving away power. The more popular and more user bitcoin gets, the more are miners forced by economic principles to get less fraudulent. Which they are not even at the beginning. The more user the higher the mining competition. A big miner has made a long term multi million dollar investment.  He will never cheat or provide a weak infrastructure. He is always forced by the market to get better. Get better infrastructure. Better and safer facilities. Better Anti-Doss system. Better computation power. Better fiber cables. And if they don't to that or try to cheat, they will go down. Which makes them lose all their long term investment. And not a single businessman or investor does that and thinks like that. Mining will be one of the most competitive, when not the most, ever existed. Which makes it that secure! Every miner wants to be the best so they need the best infrastructure etc.

You as a user can use SPV with the block headers. Or applications in the future from developers who will use miner apis. The future of bitcoin is big mining facilities and big mining pools with mining devices all round the world. Mining facilities bigger than oil refineries, in which millions of mining device are running. Big mining facilities who mine petabye blocks and send them over their petabyte fiber cables.

The math is simple: Would you trust someone who dies when he lies? Yes you would.

That is what secures bitcoin. Economic and not cryptography.

Well if Bitcoin Core doesn't wake up and improve, then it won't be BTC who takes over the world. It will be some other coin.

By definition a Node is a miner and nothing else. Its on the original whitepaper:




Yes you are completely right. I posted this on purpose.

Definitions need to keep pace with the times.  Evolution has no patience for nostalgia.  If you need evidence of this, you're free to run an earlier version of Bitcoin's code from the same era the whitepaper was published.  Maybe then you'll realise things have moved on a little.  Non-mining nodes evolved out of necessity and, much like Bitcoin itself, can't be un-invented.

The disagreements with bigger blocks arises from the different camps supporting either Segwit or larger blocks. Full nodes are essentially the cogs within the blockchain which enforces the rules for SPV clients as well as those which relies on them for information. The pools actually have direct connection to each other, as demonstrated by the 2015 SPV mining forks. It doesn't matter if there is thousands of very slow nodes; miners will always connect to each other for the best chances, see FIBRE and similar implementations.
Hard fork exists because nodes are the ones which has a say in what rules Bitcoin should enforce and thus resulting in older versions of it being incompatible solely because they are enforcing the older rules, miners should not be able to dictate the protocol rules. Without a full node, how do you ensure that miners won't start mining 1000BTC block rewards? Full nodes are the ones enforcing it, you are not validating the block if you are running SPV client. It seems far easier for the miners to just collude and cheat everyone else if people are not able to verify the blocks.

Not all of the entities actually agreed to Segwit in the end, that is why Bitcoin Cash was spawned.

The idea behind Bitcoin is being trustless. Only those who can verify the blocks (ie full nodes) are able to verify that the blocks are following the rules as stated. SPV clients do not verify anything; they just follow the longest chain. There is no economic principles in play if you were to centralized mining to that extent; no one else being able to verify the blocks essentially means that everyone has to trust the miners. I'm surprised how your argument went from Bitcoin being easily manipulated by governments through ridiculous policies to making it even easier to manipulate by putting all the power into a small group of miners.

Nodes are what keeps the network secure. Without validating nodes, miners can do anything that they want with no concept of game theory or economic principle.
Again, ASICs didn't exist. One CPU One Vote was Satoshi's idea. Pools didn't exist. Bitcoin was stated as a currency for micropayments. By definition, a full node is one that downloads and validates the entire block. SPV concept was mentioned in the whitepaper as well.

The powers are only with miners, who decide on what is the longer chain, they WRITE it

any other 'node' just is a read-only listener - can say 'oh - my verify failed' and just gets out of sync (they can be only a follower and sign with a 'like' - or get off, that much powers...)

Miners get incentive, they look for good node and data transfer - first prio: with other miners, if not - earn less

As described in my pre posts, miners can't cheat. If a miner creates a 10000 btc coinbase all the other nodes would reject it. So the miner wasted a lot of time and money for nothing. They wouldn't also create a conspire group to fraud the world. Since anyone can join and also start mining. And you can't spend a 10000btc coinbase output. To nobody and nowhere. Miners are forced to act honest. And If they don't, you would find out immediately, and since the you know who they are and where they they have a very big problem. To just name the most harmless, not a single wallet will connect to them anymore. If you cheat as a miner you go out of business, you don't just lose millions of dollars, you lose everything. You lose also trust and many other things.

As you saw and answered some of my questions in the past I studied a few days SegWit to understand what is. And my final conclusion is its horrible. Bitcoin has already a bad user experience and they dropped something with made everything more complicated. After I read It got started by Blockstream the reason was clear.


Everyone on the world can still join the network and try to mine a block. I never said something different. And the miners can't cheat due to all my points listed in my pre post. Miners can't do what they want. They are not able to. This has a lot to do with economics. Its still a P2P network. From person to person. The miner is just securing the network and confirming your transaction.

And again, those node do nothing.

But if people want to verify small blocks for the rest of your life and get overtaken by other projects, go on.

If you want to support all those points, go on:

- A project which is not bitcoin anymore since a few years but still call them self bitcoin. ITS NOT P2P DIGITAL CASH ANYMORE.
- Want to create a "digital gold" or "store of value" system and a speculative asset.
- Want to support a project where they where more merchants accepting bitcoin in 2014 than now.
- Want to support a project which got infiltrated and overtaken by companies like blockstream and big banks with the goal to keep it weak and make money on things which bitcoin can't .

But you are all free, so it's your choice.

I don't understand why people like Musk and Michael Saylor promote and invest in it. Michael Saylor has a not a single idea what bitcoin is in any aspect and like musk he has a very high self interest.

Not even the ceo of the largest crypto exchange worldwide understands what bitcoin is and is agreeing on every point Michael Saylor is saying. It is NOT digital gold.

Nobody on this world can afford a 14 USD fee. I checked the average tx fee for many months now and its 10-24 USD!! Not a single middle class worker can afford this. Also not a millionaire.
The whole concept of using Bitcoin as digital cash is killed.

Why are people talking about BTC is banking the unbanked?? Lets take a look at country's like India. How should a guy in India with a monthly salary of 230 USD (25% of India) afford a 14 USD fee when making purchases for a few cent for a coffee??

You need huge blocks. And very low transaction fees. Not a cent. Not half of a cent. A 1000th of a cent. Or better a 10000th.
Real nodes (miners) have to be active. So bitcoin can benefit the whole world in every corner of the world.

So know BTC is for traders, speculators, billionaires and 100k a year salary people who invest in bitcoin due to heavy news with probably thinking you need to register with an email to use bitcoin.

I was very exited about Bitcoin Core after reading books from people like Andreas. I knew the technical part. But didn't questioned anything. I accepted the 1MB block size limit. I thought running a node on my home computer would do something. Know I know its not.

But I didn't knew what bitcoin really is about and its true purpose. Well, I thought that time ;)

But I started learning more, studying myself, trying a lot and questioning a lot. Know I'm awake and I know what bitcoin is about and how it has to be done. I also know that millions of people are still sleeping...

BTC is dead to me.


A node is a miner and nothing else.

Oh no!  What have we done?  In that case we'll "fix" it right away.   ::)

Spare us the dramatics.  The simple fact is, no protocol can satisfy everyone.  Someone is always going to believe they could do it better if people just embraced their "genius".  But just about every one of those narcissists seem to forget that they aren't the only user on the network and other people are enforcing their will by running the code that suits them.  So if you're not happy, tough shit.  It's a collaborative effort, so if you don't want to take part, then don't.

The whole "non-mining nodes don't matter" fallacy is obviously false, because it's those same non-mining nodes that prevent the network functioning how you would want it to.  If they didn't matter, they wouldn't prove an insurmountable obstacle to your hot air and wishful thinking.

We’ll ever since everything about Bitcoin started going big it has become something else that is entirely different from what it was initially meant to be. From the beginning it was very easy to mine Bitcoin as you can just sit at home and get yourself a miner and a computer and start mining as much as you can now.

But, this time around things has gotten tougher and you can’t mine Bitcoin alone, you will have to join one of the mining pools out there and most of them are big business which can’t go without registration. They are always going to abide by the laws of any country they are operating from, and there is really nothing miners can do about it. There is not going to be a change for a situation like this one.

The simple fact is, a protocol can satisfy everyone ;). If you do it correctly the network works for everyone and their desires.

Don't come with things like "a collaborative effort". Bitcoin Core is the complete opposite of it. They work against the people and against bitcoin itself and its future.

Since you have not counter-argued a single one of my arguments, I can't take you serious.

How come?

You are talking about things that don't exist.

• Blacklisted addresses that will never be able to get a transaction confirmed (LOL)
• Saying that miners are enforced to accept protocol changes, like segwit and block size adjusts. But you forget (or ignore) that the network refused a blocksize change in 2017, creating Bcash.
  
• You also said that at the most 100 people were able to mine a block. This is so absurd that you don't know what you are talking about. You forgot (or don't know) that thousands teenagers and tech guys were mining full blocks in 2010.

You are just trolling around. You said you studied about Segwit and you said it sucks just because Faketoshi want to sell his bcash coin which doesn't have segwit. You want to defend  that blocks should be big and nodes are useless, but you don't understand about mempool., block validation, mining difficult, difficult adjustment, bitcoin distribution, protocol changes, and you invented a lot of wrong and false stuff to justify it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Forbidden-151987.svg/800px-Forbidden-151987.svg.png[/list]

If you believe I need to counter a single thing you've said, then you've started from a flawed premise.  You have ideas, but no accompanying actions.  You are powerless to enact change.   

When you say "non-mining nodes don't matter", what you actually mean is they don't matter to you.  But, funnily enough, they do matter to the people that operate them.  It matters enough for them to act.  Not just empty posturing, like yourself.  They take action.  They do something.  The act of running software to enforce rules and build a network with others who wish to abide by the same rules is an act of self-determination and empowerment.  But all you can do is talk.  You are unable to prevent anyone on this network from taking action and running a non-mining node.  You also find yourself in a position where you are unable to build a network with others that could rival this network, because you don't have a sufficient number of people behind you who share your ideals.  So you can sit at your keyboard making as many arguments as you like, but they will all be hollow, weak and ineffective. 

Again, you're the one with the insurmountable obstacle to overcome because thousands of non-mining nodes are standing between you and what you want.  I'm happy just to sit here and watch you fail.  It doesn't require any action on my part.   ;)

Really Bitcoin primary risk is government so this can be reason Blockchain censorship through larger part has been known for a long time,Initially comes to whether all the governments within the world would be able to participate to implement such thing.If we take a see where Mining in larger part and the utilize of Bitcoin is more like ukarine,venunzela,Encourage the Bitcoin but too incapable to square addresses of partners.

Actually, Bitcoin's essential danger is the public authority so this can be the explanation Blockchain control through the bigger part has been known for quite a while, Initially comes to whether all the administrations inside the world would have the option to partake to actualize such thing. In the event that we take a see where Mining in bigger part and the use of Bitcoin is more similar to Ukraine, Venezuela, Encourage the Bitcoin yet too inadequate to even think about squaring addresses of accomplices.

Quite simple: 'Be stable, dont be (move to) evil'  - give ppl things they can use in masses: electronic cash (low fees) was exactly the idea Bitcoin solves

We'll see  ;)

Right, we ve seen UDP, novell, ... gone. Only stable scaling tcp got global

Bitcoin is not designed to stop government from freezing bitcoin, and it is not 'censorship-resistant'. Bitcoin does not stop people from freezing transactions, it stops them from using illicit money at scale. The thing with strong encryption is that even governments cannot decrypt a file without the key.