Bitcoin core value? - miners will switch to Bitcoin Classic

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

You can't have it both ways.

Based on the several posts you made in this thread, you seem to be arguing both that:

A) Miners won't be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users.

B) Miners will be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users (but it will be hell).

Miners will be able to create a fork, there is no technical reason why they can't.

There's a monetary reason why I believe they won't - namely they want to profit and a bitcoin network where there is no way of knowing if the owner of the address you are paying can retrieve the funds would crash bitcoin and I do not believe they want that.

They won't hard fork the blockchain unless a very large percentage of the users are using the classic client. It would be economic suicide to do so, They can, but I do not believe they are that dumb.

Thus whether or not classic becomes the future of bitcoin is in the hands of the users, not the miners.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

I am aware of the different forks and the implications of all the users not agreeing to use the same fork, but I am referring to existing coins right now, whether or not they can be "transferred", per say, to the other blockchain without having to go through a seperate program aside from the client itself.

I assume that classic is basically copying the blockchain in its current state, and thus the Bitcoin transfers are being synced as they occur in the Core blockchain? I can very well be wong, because again I have no idea how this works.

Classic can handle the current core blockchain. Running the classic client doesn't require a hard fork.

The hard fork will only happen if some of the miners start creating blocks that classic can handle that core can't.

If the miners never do that, then classic is just another client with no technical reason to use it.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

In fact I believe the fork can only happen if a majority of the hashing power starts doing blocks only classic can handle. Otherwise the core branch statistically will always be longer.

Kind of like a 51% attack power grab... only the power grab only works for clients that work with classic blocks. Clients that don't would reject that chain, resulting in the hell of not knowing if the transaction will work or destroy coins.

I believe miners are smart enough to want to avoid that hell.

[madjules007]

Nonsense. Number of non-mining nodes (call them what they are: wallets) is irrelevant to Bitcoin security.

Completely wrong. This implies that the entire network could be comprised of SPV nodes that trust a small, centralized group (miners) regarding the validity of the blockchain. That is not a trustless system at all.

More nonsense, it doesn't. Am assuming that your inference process works something like this:
  1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.
  2. I disagree, and point out that the padlocks littering our lawn add nothing to our security.
  3. From this, you infer that I'm saying that our house is secure without those padlocks.
That's flawed reasoning. I've never suggested that Bitcoin is either "a trustless system" or secure, merely that non-mining nodes don't *add* anything to security.

Anyone reading can see this is a ridiculous analogy. Instead of inventing an irrelevant analogy, try proving the actual statement wrong. If "non-mining nodes [are] irrelevant to Bitcoin security," that implies either that "Bitcoin is secure with only mining nodes" or "Bitcoin is insecure no matter what."

My statement above specifically addresses the former. It is absolutely not secure with only mining nodes. The burden is on you to prove the second statement.

The analogy is fine.

Could you explain specifically how a decentralized network of nodes is equivalent to "padlocks thrown about on our lawn?" I've explained many times, and provided evidence for how they are the only defense against Sybil attacks (from miners or otherwise).

At this point, the burden is on you to provide at the very least some theoretical basis that bolsters your statement that one could "trivially/inexpensively" render all non-mining nodes "impotent" by running some other nodes, and therefore profitably attack the system, presumably forever or until it is rendered insecure, and bitcoins valueless. You can suggest that one can cheaply bring some nodes online, but that isn't sufficient to prove anything about plausibility and likelihood of an actual attack.

There have been past double-spend attacks by miners, so we know that rational miners will attack nodes if it is profitable to do so. That they have not used Sybil attacks specifically does not prove that it is not (and was not historically) possible to do so, but it certainly does not help your claim that non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the system. If they did nothing -- like padlocks on the lawn -- wouldn't that suggest it was cheap enough to attack them with Sybils?

You need to bring something more to the table than twisted logic to suggest that non-mining nodes are "irrelevant" to the security of the network.

Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

I'm asking that you provide a modicum of evidence, logic, for a statement you made -- i.e. more than just a mere repeated opinion. I'm asking that you refute all of the points I made about how non-mining nodes do contribute to security, rather than deleting them from my quote and neglecting to address them.

Proving the positive, OTOH (that nodes *do* contribute to security), is a must. For the statement to have a defined, positive truth value, that is (because no proof != false, so you might have an "undefined," see here).
So it would be much more appropriate for me to ask *you* to prove that nodes contribute to Bitcoin security.
Please do so.

Given the theoretical nature, there are limits to the idea of "proof" here, but I've still done a lot to that end in this discussion. At this point, the burden is on you to refute the arguments:

Every node must receive and process every transaction in every block. That distributes blockchain data to all nodes who enforce the rules, rather than a system where nodes trust a central source. [i.e. decentralization as a solution for the security faults of trust]

The more nodes that exist that are enforcing the same rules, the more likely the longest valid blockchain data that you receive from them is accurate.

If there are only mining nodes, the userbase, by definition, trusts miners. Hence why the existence of non-mining nodes secures bitcoin: by decentralizing hash power from validating nodes.

One of the primary determining factors in whether a Sybil attack is possible is how cheaply identities (nodes) can be generated. The more nodes there are, and the more decentralized said nodes are, the bigger the cost of mounting a Sybil attack, since attackers must set up more nodes in more distinct locations.

There have been past double-spend attacks by miners, so we know that rational miners will attack nodes if it is profitable to do so. That they have not used Sybil attacks specifically does not prove that it is not (and was not historically) possible to do so, but it certainly does not help your claim that non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the system. If they did nothing -- like padlocks on the lawn -- wouldn't that suggest it was cheap enough to attack them with Sybils?

Non-mining nodes obviously aren't impotent because we are talking about theoretical Sybil attacks, not historical ones.

In summation: Nodes enable a decentralized, trustless system to exist in the first place (securing users' funds from centralization failure). They are the system's defense against Sybil attacks (preventing double-spending and censorship attacks) from miners or other attackers. Further, nodes, by self-validating, also decrease the number and scope of attacks on users of the system by eliminating trust-based protocols.

Getting back to my analogy, you are asking me to prove that the padlocks littering the lawn don't contribute to our security. Because, if I'm unable to, they do.
At least, according to you.

Uh, what? I stated a case for nodes being essential to the system's security. That case does not depend on your ability to argue against it. I'm simply asking you to provide any logical argument or evidence for your claims that nodes are irrelevant to the system's security.

I'm asking that you explain how a decentralized network of nodes is equivalent to padlocks littering the lawn.... if it is, you should be able to refute my claims above. Instead you're setting up a straw man that mischaracterizes everything I said, while ignoring every point I made.

This is what I said:

If "non-mining nodes [are] irrelevant to Bitcoin security," that implies either that "Bitcoin is secure with only mining nodes" or "Bitcoin is insecure no matter what."

My statement above specifically addresses the former. It is absolutely not secure with only mining nodes. The burden is on you to prove the second statement.

If you're suggesting that miners attacking non-miners is irrelevant because bitcoin is otherwise insecure anyway, the statement is false prima facie since, from a non-miners' perspective, it is very relevant to the security of their money. It is therefore relevant to the integrity of the system because the system is composed predominantly of non-miners.

I'll even help you to get your proof going. One tack might be to prove that it's economically unsound for the miners to counter "a_node_you_like" with a node of their own.

There is no such thing as proof in game theory and economics. In any case, for this to be relevant, you need to make the case that this is sufficient to profitably attack the system. Otherwise it's just a meaningless metric.

[bargainbin]

<-snip->
This is what I said:

If "non-mining nodes [are] irrelevant to Bitcoin security," that implies either that "Bitcoin is secure with only mining nodes" or "Bitcoin is insecure no matter what."

My statement above specifically addresses the former. It is absolutely not secure with only mining nodes. The burden is on you to prove the second statement.

<-snip->

There is no such thing as proof in game theory and economics. In any case, for this to be relevant, you need to make the case that this is sufficient to profitably attack the system. Otherwise it's just a meaningless metric.

Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics," so it's OK to ask me for proof when logic fails you.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here. Sorry 'bout previously bringing Godel into this, assumed our differences were more nuanced. Turns out they're rather basic -- you simply have no clue about the shit you talk about.

[madjules007]

Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here.

So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling.

Several times now you’ve dishonestly used the concept of “proof” to back contradictory claims. It’s simply a red herring you use to disguise the fact that you have no valid argument, never mind providing evidence for it.

And are you really suggesting that humans are now able to mathematically prove what “intelligent rational decision-makers” will do in given situations? Last I heard, our understanding of causal effects in macroeconomics is virtually nil.

Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics," so it's OK to ask me for proof when logic fails you.

Excellent strawman. I merely asked you to provide evidence for your baseless opinions, while pointing out the epistemic limits of “proof” in the context of human actions. The latter was for your benefit. The lone phrase you quoted out of context (from two posts ago) was clarified in my last post:

I'm asking that you provide a modicum of evidence, logic, for a statement you made -- i.e. more than just a mere repeated opinion.

You’ve only managed a couple fallacious retorts, so you’re not in a position to say when logic has failed anyone. If my logic has indeed failed, simply refute my arguments on a logical basis. I’ve summarized them below. You’ve even suggested that you can indeed prove your case on the basis of mathematical models, which I am excited to see:

Every node must receive and process every transaction in every block. That distributes blockchain data to all nodes who enforce the rules, rather than a system where nodes trust a central source. [i.e. decentralization as a solution for the security faults of trust]

The more nodes that exist that are enforcing the same rules, the more likely the longest valid blockchain data that you receive from them is accurate.

If there are only mining nodes, the userbase, by definition, trusts miners. Hence why the existence of non-mining nodes secures bitcoin: by decentralizing hash power from validating nodes.

One of the primary determining factors in whether a Sybil attack is possible is how cheaply identities (nodes) can be generated. The more nodes there are, and the more decentralized said nodes are, the bigger the cost of mounting a Sybil attack, since attackers must set up more nodes in more distinct locations.

There have been past double-spend attacks by miners, so we know that rational miners will attack nodes if it is profitable to do so. That they have not used Sybil attacks specifically does not prove that it is not (and was not historically) possible to do so, but it certainly does not help your claim that non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the system. If they did nothing -- like padlocks on the lawn -- wouldn't that suggest it was cheap enough to attack them with Sybils?

Non-mining nodes obviously aren't impotent because we are talking about theoretical Sybil attacks, not historical ones.

In summation: Nodes enable a decentralized, trustless system to exist in the first place (securing users' funds from centralization failure). They are the system's defense against Sybil attacks (preventing double-spending and censorship attacks) from miners or other attackers. Further, nodes, by self-validating, also decrease the number and scope of attacks on users of the system by eliminating trust-based protocols.

you simply have no clue about the shit you talk about.

I respect that you take a dishonest approach to debate; it’s nothing new.

But even if you could show this to be true (rather than being based on transparent fallacies), you still haven’t begun to make your case that nodes are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. You're merely attacking me as a person.

[jod_doj]

i doubt that all the miners will switch to classic, core seems to be pretty strong still and miners dont seem to want to mine on classic a lot

[bargainbin]

Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here.

So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling.

No. That's retarded. Stop being retarded.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security, because stops Evol from getting in.
2. When I object & ask you to explain how, you retort with "so prove to me that garlic is not essential for for our security."
3. I point out that such proof, as is the case for most "prove the negative," would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, and that the burden of proof remains with you.

I go on to suggest that

Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics"

Claiming that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics" is proof positive that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are wasting my time.
Please stick to digging ditches & stop wasting my time, madjules007.

inb4 "But holy water": No, stop grasping at straws & keep digging.

[madjules007]

Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here.

So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling.

No. That's retarded. Stop being retarded.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security, because stops Evol from getting in.
2. When I object & ask you to explain how, you retort with "so prove to me that garlic is not essential for for our security."
3. I point out that such proof, as is the case for most "prove the negative," would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, and that the burden of proof remains with you.

So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.

I explained precisely how nodes are essential to network security. You've addressed precisely zero of those arguments. Here is a short summary that includes some of those arguments:

Every node must receive and process every transaction in every block. That distributes blockchain data to all nodes who enforce the rules, rather than a system where nodes trust a central source. [i.e. decentralization as a solution for the security faults of trust]

The more nodes that exist that are enforcing the same rules, the more likely the longest valid blockchain data that you receive from them is accurate.

If there are only mining nodes, the userbase, by definition, trusts miners. Hence why the existence of non-mining nodes secures bitcoin: by decentralizing hash power from validating nodes.

One of the primary determining factors in whether a Sybil attack is possible is how cheaply identities (nodes) can be generated. The more nodes there are, and the more decentralized said nodes are, the bigger the cost of mounting a Sybil attack, since attackers must set up more nodes in more distinct locations.

There have been past double-spend attacks by miners, so we know that rational miners will attack nodes if it is profitable to do so. That they have not used Sybil attacks specifically does not prove that it is not (and was not historically) possible to do so, but it certainly does not help your claim that non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the system. If they did nothing -- like padlocks on the lawn -- wouldn't that suggest it was cheap enough to attack them with Sybils?

Non-mining nodes obviously aren't impotent because we are talking about theoretical Sybil attacks, not historical ones.

In summation: Nodes enable a decentralized, trustless system to exist in the first place (securing users' funds from centralization failure). They are the system's defense against Sybil attacks (preventing double-spending and censorship attacks) from miners or other attackers. Further, nodes, by self-validating, also decrease the number and scope of attacks on users of the system by eliminating trust-based protocols.

I conceded multiple times that "proof" in the realm of economics is elusive because economic models rely on unprovable assumptions about human actions. I therefore simply asked you to provide any basis at all for your opinions, which you have yet to provide:

I'm asking that you provide a modicum of evidence, logic, for a statement you made -- i.e. more than just a mere repeated opinion. I'm asking that you refute all of the points I made about how non-mining nodes do contribute to security, rather than deleting them from my quote and neglecting to address them.

I've made a case for how nodes are indeed essential to network security. Your refusal to address that case is not evidence against it. You can claim the burden of proof is on me. But merely claiming that your argument is impossible to prove, then refusing even to form a logical argument to refute mine, does not disprove my arguments, nor does it bolster yours.

So...explain please, with regard to my arguments, how nodes are analogous to "garlands of garlic on our front door." Because that's just a bizarre opinion with no basis that you continually repeat.

I go on to suggest that

Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics"

Claiming that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics" is proof positive that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are wasting my time.
Please stick to digging ditches & stop wasting my time, madjules007.

inb4 "But holy water": No, stop grasping at straws & keep digging.

Oh? Then state how game theory models are provable, rather than (as usual) stating a baseless opinion and trying to act smart. Explain please, with regard to epistemology, how mathematical models can prove how humans will act. Go ahead and do it. What do "mathematical proofs" have to do with human action under non-repeatable conditions? That game theory employs applied mathematics to map correlations does not say anything about its capacity for proving causality. Economic models are based on tacit, unprovable assumptions about how the world works (e.g. human nature).

If economic models can be proven, why are there no "Economic Laws" (as opposed to "Physical Laws")? Because variables in game theory and economics are tainted by human actions, which are governed by more than one simple variable that can be isolated and repeated in the empirical sense. In physical science, we can isolate variables in repeatable procedures (experiments) to prove cause-and-effect. This is the accepted, rationalist approach. But in economics, there are no "repeatable" conditions -- the conditions are never the same.

Hume on the problem of causality in macroeconomics:
“There can be no demonstrative arguments to prove that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience."

Keep on insulting me. I don't mind. That you think that game theory models are "provable" and that randomly linking to a Wikipedia article about "mathematical proofs" makes your case certainly suggests that one of us doesn't know what the fuck we're talking about.

[bargainbin]

Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here.

So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling.

No. That's retarded. Stop being retarded.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security, because stops Evol from getting in.
2. When I object & ask you to explain how, you retort with "so prove to me that garlic is not essential for for our security."
3. I point out that such proof, as is the case for most "prove the negative," would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, and that the burden of proof remains with you.

So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.

You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here.
I'm attempting to make you understand by trying different analogies. Clearly, it's not working. Because for understanding to take place, the subject must be *capable* of understanding, Which you are not. Or are faking stupidity. Either way, it's starting to try my patience. Your slimy tactic is to add more and more text, most of it copy-pasted, and hoping that your opponent gets bored/frustrated & goes away.
Like, for instance, a frickin' duplicate of this thread, where you wage your war of [feigned?] stupidity & attrition

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13915026#msg13915026

And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support

...
I'm running nodes to keep the network decentralized.
...

Oy vey, a core sybil attack! Halp!

[madjules007]

So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.

You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here.

Here's the most common definition of "analogy":

a·nal·o·gy
noun: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did:

  1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.

1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security

Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.

I'm attempting to make you understand by trying different analogies.

That's the problem. You've done nothing to establish that your analogies are remotely accurate; you repeat them ad nauseum, but that doesn't make them any more than baseless opinions.

You claim that nodes are irrelevant to network security, yet you ignore all the evidence that they are not. Instead of refuting my arguments, you construct these bizarre analogies with no basis in reality, on the basis of opinion. The fact is that they are completely inaccurate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.

Clearly, it's not working. Because for understanding to take place, the subject must be *capable* of understanding, Which you are not. Or are faking stupidity. Either way, it's starting to try my patience. Your slimy tactic is to add more and more text, most of it copy-pasted, and hoping that your opponent gets bored/frustrated & goes away.

Right. Instead of debating the points made, you level personal attacks, as usual, without ever once making a substantive argument. The only time I copy-pasted was when you repeatedly stated the burden of proof was on me, while simultaneously ignoring all evidence I provided. So I re-quoted some of it for you, in hopes that you would address it. You, of course, did not. Simply ignoring everything your opponent says is not adequate to declare victory.

Like, for instance, a frickin' duplicate of this thread, where you wage your war of [feigned?] stupidity & attrition

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13915026#msg13915026

...And? I'm happy to mitigate ignorance around here. That both of you state that "nodes are irrelevant to security" as a given, without addressing the mountain of evidence that they are not, does nothing to suggest that it's true.

And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support

...
I'm running nodes to keep the network decentralized.
...

Oy vey, a core sybil attack! Halp!

Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you? 

Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote

It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^You're good at this.

[Peter R]

My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?

How do we know what consensus rules the rest of the network is using are?  

The first method is to inspect transactions and blocks that have already been included in the Blockchain and try to determine the rules empirically via abduction.  

Is there another way?

[Peter R]

A second method is to assume that the rest of the network is using code that is the same (or similar) to the code that we use for our node, and determine the consensus rules from that code via deduction.  

The first method would have failed during the first halving while the second method would have succeeded.  There was no blockchain evidence that the coinbase reward would suddenly be reduced from 50 BTC to 25 BTC; however, the halving rule was encoded into Satoshi's original Bitcoin code.  

Should blocks greater than 1MB soon be included into the blockchain, the second method would have failed while the first method would have succeeded.  There is little blockchain evidence of a 1 MB limit; however, code going back to the late summer of 2010 contained a rule that specified that blocks shall be no greater than 1 MB.  

Neither method is perfect: we can't be sure that Bitcoin will empirically behave the same in the future as it did in the past, and we also can't know for certain what code is being run by the "rest of the network."  It's a matter of epistemology.  

[bargainbin]

So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.

You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here.

Here's the most common definition of "analogy":

a·nal·o·gy
noun: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did:

 1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.

1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security

Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:

Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.

Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.

No. You typed shitloads of words, which rarely corresponds to "mount[ing] considerable evidence." This subtle distinction eludes you too, I'm sure.

Edit:

...

And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support

...
I'm running nodes to keep the network decentralized.
...

Oy vey, a core sybil attack! Halp!

Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you?  

Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote

It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?

In that case, you disagree with the majority of Core supporters, who feel that one node = one "economic agent" (whateverthefuck that means) & thus nodes become a voice of the "economic majority" (whateverthefuck that means).

As far as reading the white paper, I did. Number of times non-mining-non-wallet nodes mentioned: 0 (zero).

[russian_pete]

This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.  Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase...

[bargainbin]

This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.  Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase...

Sure, miners' interests != hodlers interests (though this rabbit hole goes too deep for comfort -- all nodes (wallets) mined in satoshi's model. Contrary to Pierre's claims, the white paper makes no mention of non-mining, non-wallet nodes.

My point is not that miners' interests inevitably coincide with those of the hodlers, but that non-mining nodes (which are not being used as a wallet) add nothing to Bitcoin security. Your wallet (as in the only wallet that's truly trustless, one running a full node) checks for *you* that the miners are following your ruleset.

[jonald_fyookball]

This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.  Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase...

Sure, miners' interests != hodlers interests (though this rabbit hole goes too deep for comfort -- all nodes (wallets) mined in satoshi's model. Contrary to Pierre's claims, the white paper makes no mention of non-mining, non-wallet nodes.

My point is not that miners' interests inevitably coincide with those of the hodlers, but that non-mining nodes (which are not being used as a wallet) add nothing to Bitcoin security. Your wallet (as in the only wallet that's truly trustless, one running a full node) checks for *you* that the miners are following your ruleset.

Mostly agree with the caveat that NMN add security for those not running nodes (SPV)

[Yogafan00000]

Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:

Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.

You didn't explain anything; you just insult.  Your analogies are weak and you have no position.

I apologize in advance to anyone reading this however I feel an ad hominem attack is warranted.  Bargainbin, your intelligence is low and you likely suffer from hygiene problems.

That is all.

[bargainbin]

Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:

Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.

You didn't explain anything; you just insult.  Your analogies are weak and you have no position.

I apologize in advance to anyone reading this however I feel an ad hominem attack is warranted.  Bargainbin, your intelligence is low and you likely suffer from hygiene problems.

That is all.

Dear fucking idiot: your failure to understand may be caused by
a) My failure to explain
b) You being a fucking idiot
I'm betting on the latter.
Now run along and play your vidya.