the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins

[vnvizow]

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes had weight, that weight is about only 40 $/m per node.
Do you think that the deployment of nodes is a problem for the miners?

IMO it's a problem for the community as a whole, while anyone can be a node so normal users can still have a vote in things, the possibility of "fake" nodes being hosted by sides of the fork to skew numbers is increasingly higher

[1714947342]

1714947342

[1714947342]

1714947342

[1714947342]

1714947342

[1714947342]

1714947342

[1714947342]

1714947342

[franky1]

IMO it's a problem for the community as a whole, while anyone can be a node so normal users can still have a vote in things, the possibility of "fake" nodes being hosted by sides of the fork to skew numbers is increasingly higher

and nodes can ban obvious sybil nodes by ip banning certain 'servers'

[AgentofCoin]

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.

Validator Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
Miner Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
"Nakamoto Consensus" still exists if Miners & Validators are both being asked to
signal/vote together. At one time, either side could not dictate to the other, but
this is now the case.

Choosing to use one of the two parties (Miners or Validators) to determine a protocol
or bug/fix change to the code is valid, since it is possible to do now, since ASICs
caused the splitting of "Nakamoto Consensus". The splitting has allowed for new ways
to "upgrade" the Bitcoin network. Whether those new ways are good or overall harmful
to the system as a symbiotic organism, is dependent on if a party disagrees with the
proposal. If all can agree, any method of upgrade is appropriate, whether by pool/miner
or nodes.

My statements about how Consensus works now does not mean that things can be
implemented, since Yes, the other symbiotic systems need to participate eventually
as well. If other systems hold out indefinitely, then nothing is actually accomplished.

[AgentofCoin]

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes has weight, that weight is about only 40$/m per node.
Why do you think that the deployment of nodes is a big problem for the miners?

There is very likely miscommunication, since I do not understand what you are getting at.

But, GPU, ASIC, or Quantum Mining, do not equal CPU. That is impossible.
Validator Nodes are the only mechanism to prevent miners from breaking rules.
Miners today have the power to break rules because 1 CPU has become 1 ASIC.
If 1 CPU = 1 ASIC, then Miners could not threaten hardforks, it would still be all
or nothing with upgrades.

"Weight" of Nodes is irrelevant. Validator Nodes currently are altruistic.
Profit is worthless since Validator Nodes run on ideology. Their current Ideology
is the current protocol implementation or what they individually signal for.

Deployment of Validator Nodes are not a big problem for Miners, as long as Miners
do not attempt to break the rules. If Miners think they have more power or "weight"
than Validators, then Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.
Miners do not do this because the knowledgeable Miners understand what I am saying.

Exchanges, Businesses, Users, & etc (Economies) are the Validator Nodes. If Miners
will not hardfork without Exchanges, they are saying they need Validator Nodes.

[David Rabahy]

Man, you guys are killing me.  Ok, so, I shutdown my Core version of Bitcoin and downloaded/installed the BU version.  I will switch back if I want to.

https://coin.dance/blocks is the place to watch the drama?

I am not happy.  I want the two camps to come together.  This might be impossible given human nature but it is what I want.

[Oznog]

...Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

[David Rabahy]

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

[AgentofCoin]

...Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

And that is what we are all waiting for.

I think I know what will happen, but we will only know when the
Miners contentiously hardfork. Otherwise, they aren't going to get what
they think they want since the Validator Nodes majority don't want on
On-Chain scaling right now at this point in time.

I have already resigned myself into thinking it is inevitable now.
So lets do this already if they have the brains and balls.

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

No, only after the hardfork occurs, and when it does, you will know it
happened because shit will go crazy in ever Bitcoin sector.

[Holliday]

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

  ...Validator Nodes majority ...

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion.  Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading.  Economic majority is what counts.  If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

[Shifty1down5up]

Man, you guys are killing me.  Ok, so, I shutdown my Core version of Bitcoin and downloaded/installed the BU version.  I will switch back if I want to.

https://coin.dance/blocks is the place to watch the drama?

I am not happy.  I want the two camps to come together.  This might be impossible given human nature but it is what I want.

?? You're only confusing yourself. By going the unlimited route you are encouraging a fork.

I haven't decided myself. Seems a fork is over all bad as it adds to confusion for the man on the street. BTC's appeal is it's brand name. I never got into this to buy cheese burgers. It's simply a store of value.

[David Rabahy]

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone doesn't make a >1MB block and ignite this.  What's keeping them from doing it?  Good behavior?  I can't do it; I don't command enough hashing power.

[Holliday]

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone doesn't make a >1MB block and ignite this.  What's keeping them from doing it?  Good behavior?  I can't do it; I don't command enough hashing power.

It obvious. They don't have the support of the economic majority or it would have happened ages ago.

[Holliday]

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion.  Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading.  Economic majority is what counts.  If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

While nodes don't really get a vote, they may represent one.

If I had to venture a guess, people with large amounts of bitcoin also are the type of people who will want the obvious advantages that comes from using a full node as your wallet software.

Clearly this is only speculation on my part, but I think it makes sense.

[AgentofCoin]

 ...Validator Nodes majority ...

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion.  Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading.  Economic majority is what counts.  If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

If you read the last paragraph of my prior posting:

...
Exchanges, Businesses, Users, & etc (Economies) are the Validator Nodes. If Miners
will not hardfork without Exchanges, they are saying they need Validator Nodes.

[AngryDwarf]

Quoted an another thread:

My current thoughts on this matter are:

1. Mining nodes = blockchain builders and source of new coins
2. Business nodes = coin utility enablers by supplying goods or services
3. User nodes = source of economic activity by moving coins

1 + 2 are the nodes that in consensus dictate the protocol. 3 either follow or become unsynced. May as well become SPV wallets in the long run.

Thats my two sats for now, but don't worry - it won't confirm as its not worthy of inclusion due to the transaction fee.

If there is unanimous consensus and well connected nodes between groups 1 & 2, group 3 basically has no choice but to follow. If they don't, their transactions don't get confirmed and their UTXO's simply become unspendable in the system making other coins more valuable.

[AgentofCoin]

Quoted an another thread:

My current thoughts on this matter are:
1. Mining nodes = blockchain builders and source of new coins
2. Business nodes = coin utility enablers by supplying goods or services
3. User nodes = source of economic activity by moving coins

1 + 2 are the nodes that in consensus dictate the protocol. 3 either follow or become unsynced. May as well become SPV wallets in the long run.
...

Correct, and this is all that I was trying to say above, but didn't include
SPV nodes because those are not validating and don't even store the blockchain.

So either some Bitcoin community members in general do not understand that difference
between SPV Nodes and Validating Nodes, or are trying to confuse it for others as
it relates to the current hardfork issue. Nodes are not worthless compared to Miners,
unless those people are referring to SPV Nodes in comparison to Miners.

(My only issue with above quote is that for #3, some are based on the validating of #2.
Also, #3 could be a few validators, but of course most are surely using SPV today and
likely very into the future.)

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

What I am trying to say, is that even if validating user nodes reject blocks produced by the miners, as long as the miners and businesses are well connected and working on the same consensus protocol, the validating user nodes just become unsynced (They no longer have the longest chain). They then upgrade to be compatible with the network and catch up with the full chain.

So full node consensus is not required, as long as there is consensus between miners and businesses, a protocol upgrade can go ahead.

[AgentofCoin]

<snip>

What I am trying to say, is that even if validating user nodes reject blocks produced by the miners, as long as the miners and businesses are well connected and working on the same consensus protocol, the validating user nodes just become unsynced (They no longer have the longest chain). They then upgrade to be compatible with the network and catch up with the full chain.

So full node consensus is not required, as long as there is consensus between miners and businesses, a protocol upgrade can go ahead.

No, Validating nodes and/or Business nodes have no reason to follow the miners.
In fact, the miners are following them. If the miners do not, that is called a contentious
hardfork or an accidental hardfork. One will reorg and the other is a new protocol chain.

If the miners goes off track, Business nodes and/or validating nodes won't follow the miner.
That would defeat the purpose of having a distributed decentralized validation network.

BU nodes, that exist today, exist to support a contentious hardforked chain.
in normal situations where everyone is happy, you don't need BU nodes since the CORE or
OTHER nodes would implement signaling for a very long time before the hardfork.

The term "hardfork" is from the perspective of the nodes, not the miners. So for example, if
Miners had the power to hardfork at will and nodes must follow, then a hardfork does not exist
since there is always one chain in almost all cases. "Hardforks" exist because Business nodes
and/or Validator nodes have some influence and/or power.

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

I'm talking about a specialised situation here, where the miners and businesses are directly connected to each other. If the miners and businesses are running the same new consensus protocol, any valid blocks created by miners will be validated by the business nodes. User nodes will reject them unless they upgrade to the new consensus protocol.
If however, business nodes are connecting to the miners through user nodes, then the user nodes may invalidate the miner blocks and not pass them onto the business nodes.