Hahaha. Another clown that thinks *hashpower* defines the consensus rules. Explain to us all how that works. Does ___ PH hash = 21 million coin limit?
No. But nice try at reductio al stupido. Hashpower is a pretty good measure of economic resources.
LOL. Pretty good? How about all the wealth stored on the network? Miners cannot alone dictate the rules; they merely order transactions. Miners are meaningless on a dead network.
In this world where chicken littles are cluck-clucking about how expensive a 2MB node is to run, a mid-size miner can spin up any number of nodes.
How do you not understand that a miner (or Coinbase or Roger Ver) spinning up a bunch of nodes has
absolutely nothing to do with the software
users are running? How useful are miners communicating with themselves + a bunch of datacenter nodes with no economic activity behind them? Miners need people to sell their coins to..... so if you think they can ignore the network of users by spinning up nodes...... LOL.
To such a miner, the cost of operating nodes is less than chickenfeed. For a mere two chicks. The non-mining nodes have cluck-all to do with consensus. But they do make the impotent feel good about their 'power'.
That's only true if they are merely concerned with communicating amongst themselves, as opposed to the network of users, who may have forked them off.
How's it going to work if 75% of miners fork to another network, and the majority of nodes do not follow? Miners don't make the rules. Nodes do.
Even if miners were somehow magically prevented from operating nodes
Still pushing this
disinformation that spinning up nodes forces the rest of the network to install some foreign software? Shame on you.
if the miners build a chain with whatever rules they care to, and the transactionators keep transactionating upon that blockchain
Why would you assume that? If miners violate the inflation controls that prevent > 21 million coins from being produced (these are consensus rules) why would anyone be transacting on their blockchain?
No one would accept payment on that chain as legitimate.that chain defines Bitcoin. The nodes have fuck-all to say about it. What are they gonna do, just drop all the incoming transactions on the floor?
What the hell are you talking about? "Drop all the incoming transactions on the floor?" Do you even bitcoin? No one accepts confirmed payments on that chain if they break the rules they enforce. That goes for any node on the network.
Miners unaffected - they'll just reach down and pick up the dropped transactions, and mine 'em in the next block. Or the next...
And no one will necessarily care about the blockchain those miners are mining on....
Now you can argue that the node instances are a reflection of the transactionators' will. But that is a different conversation altogether. Is that your claim? If so, well then let's discuss this real issue rather than imbuing 'nodes' with some magical power that they do not in reality possess.
Node software is the only aspect of the bitcoin system that enforces rules. Try all you want to ignore that fact, but it is not merely an indication of will. If 75% of miners are mining on another chain, and 75% of users exist on the original chain, 75% of users simply ignore the invalid chain. It's very simple.
Though to answer your question directly, the miners are interested in what 75% of those making transactions will choose.
How the hell does 75% miner agreement equate to "75% of those making transactions?" What connection do they have at all?
As those making transactions are the power that keep miners in check.
Indeed. And they will fork off miners who publish invalid blocks.
They have no need to worry about amassing 75% of nodes. Nodes are powerless.
Then why did Gavin solicit pledges for people to spin up thousands of nodes? Why are services like classic-cloud spinning up nodes? The simple answer is to try to indicate that there is a network of users behind these nodes. (Of course, we know that is largely untrue simply based on the facts) Why is that necessary?
Because miners are meaningless on a dead network with no users.
In my book, any change that changes the protocol so significantly that formerly fully validating nodes become nodes incapable of validating all transactions is something other than 'backwards compatible'. But you can live in that fantasy land if you want to.
Segwit nodes are fully compatible with nodes that haven't updated. So apparently
you are the one living in a "fantasy land" where you have redefined the meaning of "backwards compatible."
But more germane, neither Classic (which, by the way, is NOT the fork published by Coinbase), XT, nor Unlimited seek to split the chain. If they did, their activation threshold would be somewhat south of 75%.
Any statistics, risk and game theory analysis to support the contention that 75% is remotely safe to ensure not only that miners, but network nodes upgrade? "Somewhat south?" What the hell does that mean? Please supply more than "who would want to stay on a dead chain?" as this is not evidence that 75% miner agreement would result in a dead chain rather than 2+ surviving chains.
Nope - you're still not getting it. We do not seek a version that no one uses. We seek multiple interoperating versions, all adherent to the same protocol based upon emergent consensus.
Cool story. What you seek =/= what will happen. If you contend that 75% miner agreement will not break the consensus that defines what bitcoin is, then provide evidence rather than passing it off as truth.
We seek a coin guided by Nakamoto Consensus, rather than one restricted by the few.
Nakamoto Consensus says nodes can and will simply fork off such a "75% miner attack" on the network. Because hashpower has fuck all to do with the rules. Again, please respond to this, specifically,
with regard to miner's ability to force users to install adversarial software:
Another clown that thinks *hashpower* defines the consensus rules. Explain to us all how that works. Does ___ PH hash = 21 million coin limit?
Miners don't have power to define the rules. Stop suggesting that they do. Node software is the only thing that enforces rules on the bitcoin network. Miners can spin up all the nodes they want -- that won't make the rest of the network install different software to accept their blocks.
We seek these principles to be eventually adopted by the overwhelming majority of Bitcoiners. And at the moment, our trajectory is positive. Cheers!
Good luck with that. I just see great opportunity for forkers to cannibalize each other.
LOL, this guy is willing to break consensus every time someone codes in a feature he likes. Like I always say, it's great that there are these new implementations now -- you forkers are cannibalizing each other.
Using a different implementation is not 'breaking consensus'. As long as a shared protocol (i.e. a protocol that has achieved consensus) is employed, it matters not what implementation each user chooses.
LOL. Really? Trying to push the
disinformation that running software that will break consensus rules =/= breaking consensus?
So now BTCD = Bitcoin Classic? How can that be, when BTCD will reject 2MB blocks as invalid, and Classic will accept them?
But you make claims about them that you cannot verify. The integrity of your statements is duly noted.
Of course I've verified them. In this case, adam deleted his post after he was called out on it. Icebreaker has quoted some great posts from frapdoc et al, feel free to peruse them; this is not an issue for me, I'm not going to waste time to search through post histories. Consider the point moot, since it was directed at adam, not you.
Poll
