Bitcoin Classic developer admits it: blocksize debate is just a powegrab excuse

[dinofelis]

Why is everyone saying we can trust miners now?

Satoshi's original design is a proof-of-work protected block chain.

Nodes have a small cost. 40$/month/node and 4$/month/IP.
If the number of nodes influences something, explain me how and I will take control of Bitcoin this weekend.

In addition, if the number of nodes were relevant, the miners would organize to assume the cost and protect their investment.

This simple truth is hard to understand for some who thought that they had the power because they had downloaded a piece of free software from the internet and were running it on their old PC...

[smoothie]

The miners are the only part of the Bitcoin ecosystem with a vested interest in Bitcoin.

All other entities that are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem can easily and quickly move onto various altcoins and/or other business ventures.

I would disagree with this.

People who have invested into bitcoin

No, these are the greater fools that were needed to pay for the joke, but they have now, in the mean time.

Your statement may become obsolete in the months to come as more "greater fools"'buy at higher and higher prices.

[Xester]

This is a war. XT, Classic, BU, you name it. They all want the power.

It's about giving the miners and a few people close to them the power to dictate the rules of consensus. Right now they're using the block size issue to seize power. And believe me, this entire mess is just a dry run for:

    -banning various network participants and blacklisting addresses (Mike Hearn)
    -lifting the 21M coin cap (Peter Rizun)
    -destroying competing chains via hostile mining (Gavin Andresen)

The main pushers of BU aren't very concerned about high fees and slow confirmation times, otherwise they wouldn't mine empty blocks. It's just a wedge they're using to split the community and garner power. The real goal is "emergent consensus", which is just a fancy term for letting whoever owns the most hashpower unilaterally implement whatever change they want.

No intelligent person in their right mind would support BU at this point.

If this is the case then the miners should leave the pools and do solo mining so nobody can dictate them and they can continue mining without having to choose one over the other. Solo mining was also effective before and it will still also be effective and profitable even up to this point. But what I really want to happen is for all miners to agree on one thing and that is to move on and unite for the sake of bitcoin.

[AgentofCoin]

Why is everyone saying we can trust miners now?

...
If the number of nodes influences something, explain me how and I will take control of Bitcoin this weekend.

In addition, if the number of nodes were relevant, the miners would organize to assume the cost and protect their investment.

Please, you must understand that the miners have the power.
They determine the correct blockchain.
And they can also override blockchain if they have enough computing power left over.

Corestream, markets and the nodes together can not challenge the miners.
The miners will defend their interests, which are those of all.

This crisis will serve to understand who has power and who does not.

If you were correct, BU supporting miners would not need BU nodes, nor need to wait.
They could in theory hardfork now without the markets or nodes, and everyone will
follow very shortly in your belief. Your statements are misguided at best and malicious
at worst.

If you were correct, you don't need to post your garbage now, they could have
hardforked yesterday. So what are they waiting for exactly?

If miners are waiting now, then they don't have power like you think.

[-ck]

If this is the case then the miners should leave the pools and do solo mining so nobody can dictate them and they can continue mining without having to choose one over the other. Solo mining was also effective before and it will still also be effective and profitable even up to this point.

Solo mining is virtually pointless at current levels of network diff, amounting to no more than lottery mining. The vast majority of miners would end up spending a lot of money on hardware and never once be rewarded for their mining; the whole point of proof of work and the mining system is for there to be incentive to mine, and solo mining leaves them with a virtually guaranteed loss and no meaningful incentive. Note that I run a solo mining service and maintain ALL the free software necessary that would allow them to do it themselves so it's not like I'm even against solo mining, I'm just realistic about it.