Gavin to Satoshi, 2010 -- "SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (...)"

[AngryDwarf]

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

Non mining nodes validate blocks on the network. So non mining nodes prevent the miners from creating larger blocks if they are running nodes that do not allow larger blocks. Otherwise miners would already be creating larger blocks without fear of orphanage.

[1714738844]

1714738844

[1714738844]

1714738844

[1714738844]

1714738844

[1714738844]

1714738844

[dinofelis]

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

Non mining nodes validate blocks on the network. So non mining nodes prevent the miners from creating larger blocks if they are running nodes that do not allow larger blocks.

What does that mean "validate" ?  It means: write it on their own copy of the block chain.   So if you own a node, you check for yourself that the block chain is validated, instead of having to rely on another node telling you so (with a light wallet).  But that's it.  

But they don't prevent miners anything.  Miners make blocks and set them on their nodes to be distributed on the network.  All USERS agreeing with those miner's rules will take the block chain and the new blocks from those miners' nodes, eventually directly if no other nearby nodes propagate them by configuring their nodes so that they connect directly to the miners' nodes, or by having their wallets connect to one of these nodes.

If you install a node that doesn't validate a block from a miner, that will not stop that miner from making that block and from getting it to the users agreeing with him ; more importantly, it will not stop miners agreeing with the previous miner from building on that block.  

Now, if your node doesn't agree, it stops downloading that block chain.  And that's it.  It won't download it, it won't propagate it.  But that won't stop users agreeing with these miners, and those miners amongst themselves, from building this chain, validating it amongst themselves, and use it as *the* block chain.

"non-validation" by a non-mining node doesn't stop that block from being mined or used.  It is as if your node simply didn't exist.  And it certainly won't stop other miners from mining on top of that block if THEY validate it.  If your node is waiting for a block that is never mined, it simply stops.

Otherwise miners would already be creating larger blocks without fear of orphanage.

No, their fear is that their peers, the other miners, will orphan it.  The only entities in a crypto network that can "orphan" a block are other miners, who build on a previous block to make a longer chain according to their rules.  No non-mining node can orphan whatever block.  It can refuse a block, or it can find a longer chain.  It is the existence of the longer chain (made by a miner) that orphans a block.  Not a non-mining node.

[jonald_fyookball]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU?

It's a simple idea.

Blocksize should not be part of the protocol rules.

If the debate's taught us anything, its how dangerous it can be to have
this specification hard coded into the software.

Instead remove it and let the miners decide via the longest chain consensus.

  Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer. 

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

[dinofelis]

It's a simple idea.

Blocksize should not be part of the protocol rules.

If the debate's taught us anything, its how dangerous it can be to have
this specification hard coded into the software.

Instead remove it and let the miners decide via the longest chain consensus.

Bingo.  

However, consensus dynamics is such that it IS now part of the protocol rules.  I fully agree with you that it was *extremely stupid*.  But now that block size became an *economic parameter*, whether one wants it or not, it IS locked in as a protocol rule.  The same rule that makes that one cannot find consensus over "redoing the last few blocks and leave out a few transactions", the same rule that makes that one cannot "jump a block reward halving", the same rule that makes that one cannot change the 10 minutes into 2 minutes.  Because all these parameters are economic parameters, meaning: if you change them, some get an advantage, and others, a disadvantage.   2 or 3 years ago, most probably the block size was still a technical parameter and could have been changed under "neutral consensus".  But now it is an economic parameter.  It is locked in.  Only centralization or a hard fork with two coins will be able to change it if the immutability mechanism means anything.

My idea is that people didn't really understand "consensus dynamics" and all its consequences.

[BillyBobZorton]

This statement has become quite ironic, hasn't it?

It's indeed ironic seeing Gavin point out the very valid point of how a fee market and a blocksize limit was needed in order to avoid nonsensical transaction spam.

Also very nice to read satoshi point out the problems of alternative software. Some people confuse decentralized development with hard forking the project and changing fundamentals of it while wanting it to call it the same.

[dinofelis]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

There is no such thing as an orphan hell in the network.  Let us define clearly what an orphaned block is: it is a valid block, but on which other miners decided not to build any more.  So only MINERS can orphan blocks.

BTW, miners (of same protocol) have good reasons to have very fast connections between them, because they need to know very quickly when a new good block (according to their rules) is mined.  They will not wait for it to be randomly propagated through the P2P network, because the time they need to receive it is lost hash power for them. It is this strong, fast network of equally-minded miners that is the "block chain principal server" (for that protocol).

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

If it really were that simple that one can impose rules by having a large majority of non mining nodes, then I'm sure that someone would already have fired up 100 000 nodes on Amazon doing that.  The very fact that bitcoin has never undergone this, simply means that non-mining nodes are not that important.

And as a consequence, that the argument against bigger blocks, "because of less nodes and hence more centralization" is totally bogus.  But it is a hard myth that will not die.

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

Thanks for the explanation. So basically miners will decide which node implementation is the official implementation, and which node implementation is trying to mess up the network? (to get back on topic)

[dinofelis]

<snip>

Thanks for the explanation. So basically miners will decide which node implementation is the official implementation, and which node implementation is trying to mess up the network? (to get back on topic)

Miners make block chains.  Users (with wallets) use them, and connect to nodes.  They can run their own full node (the only real reason to run a full node), connect to a "random node on the network" with a light wallet (and trust that node), or connect directly to the miner's network.  If the node to which they connect, runs the same protocol as the miner's (or a more permissive one), they will obtain a copy of the block chain made by those miners and their wallet will do things according to that block chain.

If they don't, well, they have a stalled node, connect to a stalled node, will not see the right balances, and may produce invalid transactions.  

If there are competing miners, with competing block chains, then the protocol choice of the node you use (one of the miners' protocols, otherwise, see above) will select the block chain corresponding to that protocol.  It is as if you used "that specific coin".  We have a hard fork and two coins now, because there are two living block chains.

So, essentially, miners make block chains, and users (with wallets) connect to a node (their own, or another one) that has a protocol that corresponds to the block chain at hand.  If there is only one block chain, they have no choice, there is only one chain.  If there are several chains, then there are several coins, and their choice of node selects their choice of coin.

(warning: their transactions can be valid on both chains in some circumstances).

Miners serve block chains.  Wallets browse block chains.  Nodes are proxies to block chain servers.

[BillyBobZorton]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

There is no such thing as an orphan hell in the network.  Let us define clearly what an orphaned block is: it is a valid block, but on which other miners decided not to build any more.  So only MINERS can orphan blocks.

BTW, miners (of same protocol) have good reasons to have very fast connections between them, because they need to know very quickly when a new good block (according to their rules) is mined.  They will not wait for it to be randomly propagated through the P2P network, because the time they need to receive it is lost hash power for them. It is this strong, fast network of equally-minded miners that is the "block chain principal server" (for that protocol).

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

If it really were that simple that one can impose rules by having a large majority of non mining nodes, then I'm sure that someone would already have fired up 100 000 nodes on Amazon doing that.  The very fact that bitcoin has never undergone this, simply means that non-mining nodes are not that important.

And as a consequence, that the argument against bigger blocks, "because of less nodes and hence more centralization" is totally bogus.  But it is a hard myth that will not die.

Decentralized network = as much nodes as possible run by different, independent entities ideally as physically widespread as possible (people, instead of single rich entities running thousands of nodes, which is only achievable by maintaining a conservative blocksize)

Centralized network = blocksize too big to guarantee that people can run their own nodes

Increasing blocksize = objectively making it harder on average for the people to run nodes = objectively centralizing the network by doing so

Not that difficult to understand.

*This does not mean 1MB should be forever, but BUcoiners aren't considering the tradeoffs as usual.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

Can we call that a UACF - User Activated Cluster F***

[dinofelis]

Decentralized network = as much nodes as possible run by different, independent entities ideally as physically widespread as possible (people, instead of single rich entities running thousands of nodes, which is only achievable by maintaining a conservative blocksize)

Centralized network = blocksize too big to guarantee that people can run their own nodes

Increasing blocksize = objectively making it harder on average for the people to run nodes = objectively centralizing the network by doing so

Not that difficult to understand.

*This does not mean 1MB should be forever, but BUcoiners aren't considering the tradeoffs as usual.

Myth.   Bollocks.  Non-mining nodes are simply miner-chain proxies.  You are right that a "decentralized network" consists of independent nodes, but a crypto currency is not a "decentralized network" but a "decentralized block chain".  And that is built by miners.

After all is said and done, the "network" doesn't matter, the block chain does.  The crypto currency is the block chain, not "the network".

A (hopefully) decentralized network is for instance, Tor, and matters for communication.  But a crypto currency is not about communication but about a consensus ledger: the block chain.

The only way in which a "decentralized network" matters, is if there were some difficulty in the *network connection* to *obtain the block chain*.   For instance, if the Great Wall of China were blocking some miner nodes, and one has to get through via a P2P way in some or other way.  THEN the "decentralized network" matters.  But if there are good internet connections, and you don't need anonymity of communication (like with Tor), then that decentralized network doesn't matter.

Because the crypto currency is the block chain: the consensus ledger.  And that is built by miners.  Not by non-mining nodes.
And you can obtain it directly from the miner if you want to.  You don't need the P2P network for that.

[tvbcof]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

[David Rabahy]

I feel sad.  I want Core and BU to come together but I fear they won't.  I don't know what to do.  I have to wait until they do come together or split.  If they come together then I will be ok.  If they split then I will have to figure out how to move/split my investment.  This violates my desire to be lazy.

[jonald_fyookball]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

[franky1]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.

i think he is new to the community and doesnt yet grasp the deeper details of consensus or bitcoin,, and has only been taught the highschool level concept.

if coinbase (non-mining node) stopped getting blocks from pool X.
pool X cant spend its reward with coinbase and thus hashing for nothing.

the nodes work together to get a single agreed chain of blocks.
the nodes agree on what should go next ontop.

pools blocks do get orphaned off where by a different pool gets chosen as the better block creator.
this happens many times a week

pools are NOT the boss.
nodes are the boss

pools are just the secretary. collating data, but having to collate it in the way the boss is happy to sign off and file. if the boss disagree's he will bin their work and get another secretary.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary
devs=janitors

[tvbcof]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

[David Rabahy]

I run a non-mining full node (it entertains me to do so).  I'm delighted to feel like I am contributing in some small way (8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections --> ~200GB per month).  But, I realize if I turn if off then the miners will plow forward mining without me.  The users would have to connect to a miner (or some other non-mining full node).  *If* all of the non-mining full nodes were turned off then the miners would plow forward mining without us.  The users would have to connect to a miner, period.

I think maybe the point is miners don't just mine, they also handle connections from users.  If a miner just mined and didn't handle connections from users then they wouldn't have any transactions to pack into blocks.  I suppose they could do that but they can do that without me.  In fact, to the miners, my non-mining full node just looks like a user (well, except that I do forward transactions that aren't mine to start with).  In fact, miners look like users to other miners.  If a miner restricted their connections to just other miners (those that produced a kept block in the last little while) then they would be ignoring users but hardly suffer at all.  In fact, a miner could not forward transactions it receives to keep other miners from seeing them and so keep the transaction fee to themselves.

So, I guess unrestricted non-mining full nodes do serve a purpose beyond self-checking the blocks the miners announce.  They help tell all miners about new transactions to help avoid hoarding/selfish miners.

Maybe the users should deliberately avoid connecting to miners.

[Lauda]

Non mining nodes don't contribute anything (or almost anything) to the "decentralized" nature of the network.  And the simple proof for that is that it is extremely easy to "Sybil attack" this amount of nodes.  One can easily fire up 100 000 nodes on Amazon and swamp the entire network.  

I call bullshit on this flawed understanding. Since "one can easily" fire up 100 000 nodes, I challenge you to prove your statement. Do it now, or stop spreading nonsense.

BTU.. the reddit script buzzword competition.. along with "ad-hom" "bucoin" "conservative" and the other obvious buzzwords blockstreamers have to use in their scripts.. the buzzword game is getting obvious

That's how it will get listed on exchanges, and that's what it is. BTU altcoin.

oh Knots...because its Luke JR... (blockstream contractor)... too obvious

It is still not Core.

how can you have decentralised network if everything is blockstream.

It is all.. open source, run by various individuals. My node is not Blockstream.

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

[jonald_fyookball]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

That's fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.  Meanwhile the rest of us are discussing the actual issues of the debate.