Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2018, 11:05:53 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do some people believe that only the nodes miners run matter?  (Read 757 times)
anunymint
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 31


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 10:39:25 PM
 #81

So if Segwit is a different fork of Bitcoin, why are the pre-segwit nodes still following the original chain

Pre-SegWit legacy (aka Satoshi) protocol miners have not forked off yet because no miner has yet decided to start spending the booty. Until that happens the two protocols produce compatible blocks.

The problem for those miners who might wish to do so is they risk not having enough hashrate and then later some other miners could respend what they spent. There needs to be a Schelling point critical mass to get the snowball rolling.

So thus I expect if it ever does start, it will be with an initial bang not a slow moving ramp up. So this means some cartel of large miners perhaps along with some Bitcoin whales. I would think they will wait for SegWit activity to maximize and for the Bitcoin price to be at a new ATH overbought nosebleed, because I presume they would also short the futures markets. They should maximize the timing to minimize chance of failure.
1529363153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529363153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529363153
Reply with quote  #2

1529363153
Report to moderator
1529363153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529363153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529363153
Reply with quote  #2

1529363153
Report to moderator
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1529363153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529363153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529363153
Reply with quote  #2

1529363153
Report to moderator
HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 641


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 10:46:03 PM
 #82

It’s also a lie to state that Core is the canonical Bitcoin.

As there is no central authority to say otherwise, and pretty much everyone refers to the "Core blockchain" as Bitcoin, it is the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain.

That's what canonical means.

I thought you are smart? You didn’t grok what I wrote to you about this in my prior post? You have not rebutted my salient point. [...]

No no no. You're mistaking my argument. I'm not trying to argue with you what the canonical Bitcoin should be or which protocol version of Bitcoin is the most correct / purest / closest to Satoshi's vision.

I am literally just arguing semantics, ie. that you misunderstand what I mean when I call a specific blockchain the "canonical Bitcoin blockchain".

The canonical Bitcoin blockchain is the one that is most commonly referred to as Bitcoin. Period. I'm not arguing about the correctness of this designation.

I use the term canonical precisely because I want to avoid the discussion about which protocol version of Bitcoin is the most correct / purest / closest to Satoshi's vision. Heck, I'm even referring to BTC as the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain, as to avoid any absolutist truth claims.

anunymint
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 31


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 10:49:31 PM
 #83

It’s also a lie to state that Core is the canonical Bitcoin.

As there is no central authority to say otherwise, and pretty much everyone refers to the "Core blockchain" as Bitcoin, it is the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain.

That's what canonical means.

I thought you are smart? You didn’t grok what I wrote to you about this in my prior post? You have not rebutted my salient point. [...]

No no no. You're mistaking my argument. I'm not trying to argue with you what the canonical Bitcoin should be or which protocol version of Bitcoin is the most correct / purest / closest to Satoshi's vision.

I am literally just arguing semantics, ie. that you misunderstand what I mean when I call a specific blockchain the "canonical Bitcoin blockchain".

The canonical Bitcoin blockchain is the one that is most commonly referred to as Bitcoin. Period. I'm not arguing about the correctness of this designation.

I use the term canonical precisely because I want to avoid the discussion about which protocol version of Bitcoin is the most correct / purest / closest to Satoshi's vision. Heck, I'm even referring to BTC as the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain, as to avoid any absolutist truth claims.

Who is enforcing your canon law?

Thus by definition the canonicity is only enforced by the economic majority, not what Hollywood puts in fictional cartoons.

What you claim is canonicity has no canon law enforcing it. It is all fiction that some people around here think is truth, but their beliefs do not make it enforecable canon law. Only the powers-that-be can enforce the canon law. Nakamoto proof-of-work provides a Nash equilibrium (which defies Schelling points for the masses for forks that would attempt to be the canon law) for the wealthy to agree on the canon law. A Schelling point of the masses which forks off, creates a Schelling point for the wealthy to maintain the Nash equilibrium and enforce the canon law.

The etymology of canonicity derives from the notion of canon law of the Roman Catholic church. The church and Rome enforced it.


Has anyone computed how much BTC has not been polluted by SegWit? That might give you an indication of the size of the economic weight which is going to sell the Core fork and buy the Satoshi fork.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 597


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
June 14, 2018, 05:15:50 AM
 #84

Continuing on the real topic.

From what I got from Anonymint, there are "a cartel of miners" that are "possibly" colluding. Then that opens the argument that users should run full nodes and validate transactions and make sure that they are valid. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Plus we have also witnessed a group of Bitcoin "oligarchs" try to "take over" through the NYA. That too should be a reason for users to run full nodes. Yet the UASF and NO2X were dismissed as drama? Hahaha.

But Anonymint then posts technical explanations why non-mining nodes do not matter, and makes it more confusing. But in reality, don't the nodes treat other nodes as "nodes" and that there are really no "mining nodes" but "just nodes" from a full node's perspective?

I am not criticizing the teacher but I expect no less than the teacher not criticizing his student for his inquisitiveness as well.

 


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1083


View Profile
June 14, 2018, 03:48:42 PM
 #85

@cellard you lack confidence in Ideal Money. Not a wise stance. You seem to think nothingness is something. Watch the EU economically collapse soon because of NIRP of the ECB buying all sovereign debt.

The fact that fiat is a scam as we understand it compared to money which has the so called "Ideal Money" properties described by Nash, doesn't change the fact that if said scam is accepted globally in exchange of literally anything, including territories, armies, and any other resource, and is forced to be accepted by its citizens which are forced to pay tax in such currency.. if it survives longer than your lifetime, it is as real as it gets for all intended purposes. If it will collapse during our lifetimes that is yet to be seen, I have no doubt it will collapse, empires come and go, but I can't claim when, and I can't also claim that Bitcoin will play a major role. I know it will play an important role, but I don't know how important. There is not enough evidence to suggest Bitcoin is part of an huge plan involving Rothschild-grade fortunes/Israel/Zionism that I can see. It could be possible, but just like it could be possible that Bitcoin was created by one or a group of people that have been involved in basically the building blocks of what Bitcoin is (Szabo, Wei Dao, Finney.. etc) and one person/a group put it all together eventually.

And as far as fork talk goes... what stops the fiat overlords to, after current Bitcoin whales dump their shares therefore losing further influence on the other end of the fork, to print the (widely accepted) currency in exchange of said fork and pumping it above the price of the legacy fork which Bitcoin whales are supporting? Bitcoin whales would no longer have market influence while fiat whales would have market influence as long as fiat hasn't collapsed.

Example: Assuming Bitcoin whales have already dumped their BCash, what stops fiat overlords from pumping it's exchange rate to $30k as well as creating false activity by filling the mempool above Bitcoin's activity, which would cause miners to jump in from Bitcoin to BCash mining? Since they share the same algo, the result would be that both the price and the hashrate end up in a weaker Bitcoin and stronger in the fork (apply this to any other Bitcoin fork fiat overlords would want to screw up with)

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!