Why do some people believe that only the nodes miners run matter?

[Carlton Banks]

Annoymint is essentially saying that the miners can follow any rules they like, the users must follow their choice of consensus rules. Which isn't what's happening in reality of course, but it's a clever argument nonetheless.

Any comments on how your sudden reappearance in the Bitcoin world is coinciding with other general market FUD, Annoymint? Oh, and please tell us about the latest developments in your satanism-resistant cryptocurrency, I'm really, really interested What's new since when you started ? (we've been waiting to hear even a little news about your big plans since... what, 2013?)

[1714018205]

1714018205

[1714018205]

1714018205

[1714018205]

1714018205

[DooMAD]

Everyone paying a fee for their transaction is economically relevant.  The network won't survive over the long term if people aren't transacting.  It's likely that people and businesses running full nodes account for a large proportion of Bitcoin's fee-paying traffic.  You can't describe them as expendable or replaceable.  Bitcoin needs those users.  It needs more users if it really is to become a global reserve currency.  Which is why scaling is necessary.

Bitcoin doesn’t need any of them to transact on-chain. They will continue off-chain where they belong so that Bitcoin can retain its most important attribute.

Their measly transaction fees are irrelevant. Bitcoin transaction fees are going to $50,000. It is the wealthy who transact who will matter for miners’ revenue.

Think your game theory through to conclusion.  If the only people transacting on the network were people running specialised hardware, Bitcoin would have far less functionality and adoption than it currently has.

LN as a settlement network can provide all that functionality whilst being totally compatible with Satoshi's protocol (they are both undeniably going to be entirely centralized so even the 1MB block can be sufficient).

And miners were signalling for NYA because...?  They clearly desired more blockspace for more fee-paying transactions.  Just about every single argument you've ever made on this board would only make sense if you don't live in reality.  You can't rationally argue that miners want a 1MB blocksize when we've seen demonstrably that they wanted larger blocksizes.  The fact they didn't get their first preference of the "2x" proposal is evidence enough that the non-mining nodes still hold ample economic sway over network governance.  We all saw it play out.  We got a compromise in the form of SegWit, which most of the miners and users accepted.  Those that didn't accept it have the option of BCH.  That's what happened in the real world.  Nothing in your fantasy world of make believe is going to happen.  You are a renowned kook.  Get your meds adjusted.  Come back when you're not having some sort of perpetual paranoid-psychotic episode.

I have explained that the miners who honor Satoshi’s protocol are enforcing the only secure Nash Equilibrium

The entirely fictitious miners that only exist in your head?  The ones that act in a manner wholly contrary to their own future success and longevity?  Tell them the real world says hi for me.

And LN does not absolutely even need the malleability fix. It certainly doesn’t need the P2SH trojan horse that enables the theft on Satoshi’s protocol.

Except it doesn't enable theft.  The game theory was all done before the code was even written.  Read the whitepaper again:

"The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest.  If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth."

The Schelling point of pay-to-anyone non-immutability doesn't change this incentive to remain honest.  If it did, SegWit never would have been devised, let alone implemented.  Again, no amount of telling us "but look how many bitcoins they could steal" is going to change the fact that doing so would seriously impact the value of those bitcoins going forwards.  The wealthy won't be wealthy anymore if they lose their shirts in the attack.

trilema.com

Ah, you've been drinking the MP kool-aid.  Not surprising that he attracts your ilk.  The mentally unhinged always rally around MP's deranged war-cries.  I can't take anyone who references or quotes his gutter-spiel seriously.  

[Carlton Banks]

Actually it is really fucking hilarious that Core has scammed all of you and convinced you to spend your Bitcoins to “pay to anyone”.

Only pre-Segwit nodes (about 2% of the network, none of which are miners) interpret Segwit tx's as ANYONECANPAY. It's the soft-forking logic that keeps pre-Segwit nodes from rejecting Segwit blocks, every other node (the other 98%) knows that Segwit transactions need a valid signature (hence why 95% of miners was the activation threshold for Segwit). Remember how it got activated: miners essentially began to threaten each other with orphaning non-Segwit signalling blocks to force the others to enforce the Segwit soft fork. But apparently, according to your logic, miners will wait until Segwit addresses are in majority use, then roll back the Segwit soft fork and steal everyone's BTC, mwuhahahhahaha!

Here's a little issue with your theory: Segwit buried deployment, which maintains Segwit's activation since block number 1.

And there's always going to be enough independent miners to keep the chain going from attack block -1, any miners contemplating such an attack know this in advance. So it's not a functional attack at all, and certainly won't be after Segwit deployment is permanently enforced.



This is last year's FUD, and you've been forced to scrape this one up off the floor after the biggest clown trolls in existence barfed it up when they couldn't get it to stick.

You've not got much imagination, your only gift seems to be that you believe if you can just keep talking, then everyone will accept your babbling. But what happens in reality? You stop talking

[Wind_FURY]

Annoymint is essentially saying that the miners can follow any rules they like, the users must follow their choice of consensus rules. Which isn't what's happening in reality of course, but it's a clever argument nonetheless.

Thanks. That proves my first thought that he might be a person that I should not listen to.

Plus I believe BIP148 and NO2X showed Jihan Wu who's boss. It is also the reason why he supported Roger Ver's call to hard fork to Bitcoin Cash. To "own" a network they can control.

Does covert AsicBoost still work in Bitcoin Cash?

Any comments on how your sudden reappearance in the Bitcoin world is coinciding with other general market FUD, Annoymint? Oh, and please tell us about the latest developments in your satanism-resistant cryptocurrency, I'm really, really interested What's new since when you started ? (we've been waiting to hear even a little news about your big plans since... what, 2013?)

Oh?

It says the same thing of what I have been thinking, that running full nodes do matter because they validate transactions and blocks and check that they are following the rules. The same in my thoughts of its importance with censorship resistance.

Anunymint, I will quote the "on topic" parts of the blog and leave it to you to reply.

So he is not even correct to imply that the mining nodes need to beware. If the majority hashrate of the mining nodes decide to steal SegWit, then the non-mining nodes can fork off and be as economically irrelevant as they are.

But in truth non-mining full nodes are not irrelevant. The miners, users, merchants, services, the economic majority are all relevant in the network. NO2X proved it.

[Wind_FURY]

I tried to understand all the technical posts you made but let me tell you, this is when my instincts started telling me to stop listening and wear my tinfoil hat on. You remind me of franky1. Hahaha.

You can be a paid propagandist of Roger Ver.

Lol. Those who accept UTXO with SegWit in the transaction history (even if they obtained the BTC from an exchange) could possibly have all their BTC stolen by the miners in a future long-range 50+% attack on SegWit without ever touching your wallet or your private keys. May happen or may not happen, but of course those (i.e. Blockstream/Core) who want you to adopt SegWit will try to tell you it can never happen, yet they refuse to debate me (they’ll probably fabricate flimsy reasons to ban this account also in order to hide the debate). That is why I will be very careful about the lineage of the BTC I am holding as SegWit transaction volume ramps up. Because SegWit is pay to anyone. It totally breaks the security of proof-of-work. SegWit is like a virus so the oligarchy can steal from all the n00bs who decide to spend their BTC to SegWit “pay to anyone”. The next cryptowinter (2019?) would be caused by such a catastrophic event which would be (if it happens) on the scale of the Mt. Gox theft when it controlled 75% of exchange volume in 2013. Notice Mt. Gox did not kill Bitcoin permanently. And neither will killing SegWit by taking all the “donations” from n00bs permanently kill Bitcoin. The powers-that-be will be short before they do it. Then they will be long again at the bottom of the cryptowinter. Because greater fools are pigs for the slaughter by the smart money.

As for the BIP148 User Activated Hard Fork (USAF), it's nonsense designed to get fanboys to give away their BTC to the powers-that-be. It’s just more political manipulation of the n00bs who can't add 2 + 2. Only the economic majority and the miners decide and frankly they are the same entities behind the curtain due to the power-law distribution of wealth then we masses always own less than 50% of the money supply.

Sorry about your health. I hope you get well. Take care of yourself.

[HeRetiK]

Actually it is really fucking hilarious that Core has scammed all of you and convinced you to spend your Bitcoins to “pay to anyone”.

Only pre-Segwit nodes (about 2% of the network, none of which are miners) interpret Segwit tx's as ANYONECANPAY.

At least I don’t out right lie to the readers like you do here.

[...]

You know damn well that miners are entirely anonymous and their signaling is nothing but a game that can change with the wind when they’re ready.

SegWit signalling aside, it is still a fact that actual SegWit nodes do honor SegWit transactions like they would honor legacy transactions. I mean that's pretty much the definition of a SegWit node.

It is also worth noting that a SegWit rollback hardfork (ie. back to legacy nodes that interpret SegWit transactions as ANYONECANPAY) requires either (a) literally all miners including the majority of non-mining nodes to collude, or (b) if full miner control can't be achieved, enough hashpower to both force the SegWit rollback while keeping the SegWit blockchain in lockdown with a 51% attack.

While I understand you firmly believe in a SegWit reckoning happening it is still pretty close to impossible to pull off. And that has nothing to do with lying our trying push an agenda.

Annoymint is essentially saying that the miners can follow any rules they like, the users must follow their choice of consensus rules. Which isn't what's happening in reality of course, but it's a clever argument nonetheless.

Thanks. That proves my first thought that he might be a person that I should not listen to.

Plus I believe BIP148 and NO2X showed Jihan Wu who's boss. It is also the reason why he supported Roger Ver's call to hard fork to Bitcoin Cash. To "own" a network they can control.

Does covert AsicBoost still work in Bitcoin Cash?

Yes, as it's SegWit transactions that make the advantage covert AsicBoost moot it likely still works in Bitcoin Cash. So if Bitmain was using covert AsicBoost (afaik this was never conclusively proven?) they indeed had a strong interest in trying to prevent SegWit from being activated on mainnet.

I found a simplified explanation of why covert AsicBoost is thwarted by SegWit transactions here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/56514/how-does-segwit-prevent-asicboost

[HeRetiK]

[...] A sustained super majority of the hashrate attack probably decides the outcome, but this will be driven by the activity of the economic majority. [...]

I think this is what it boils down to. The economic majority.

Even if enough miners where to collude as to attempt a SegWit rollback hardfork, I simply do not see the rest of the ecosystem to play along. Or at least I have yet to read a convincing argument of why the market would decide for the rollback blockchain (ie. the one you are referring to as Satoshi blockchain) over the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain (ie. the one you are refererring to as Core).

In other words, it all stands and falls with the economic majority, not with what the miners decide to do. All the SegWit booty in the world won't help if no one's willing to buy. Hence there's a real economic cost in attempting such an coup. Hence it's more than just "the flick of a switch" that you make it out to be. (Holistically speaking. False signalling and changing software is trivial, of course, but I presume that lies not at the heart of your argument)

[Carlton Banks]

Annoymint is essentially saying that the miners can follow any rules they like, the users must follow their choice of consensus rules. Which isn't what's happening in reality of course, but it's a clever argument nonetheless.

Thanks. That proves my first thought that he might be a person that I should not listen to.

It's good exercise to refute Annoymint's claims, it consolidates the way one understands Bitcoin.

OTOH, I had Annoymint and his alias accounts (TPTB_need_war, iamnotback, dinofelis etc) in mind when I suggested adding a pay per post feature to the forum. I was wrong, I hereby propose "pay-per-character"

(seriously, imagine if you earned enough merit to get a cut of the paid-posters? Annoymint would be paying you every time he unleashes his rainbows of effluent)

[Carlton Banks]

It's good exercise to refute Annoymint's claims, it consolidates the way one understands Bitcoin.

And where’s the refutation?

Where's yours?

"Liar, liar" was your reply, and unfortunately you failed to identify a lie, or provide reasoning. That's not a request as such btw, I think your reply speaks for itself

[Last of the V8s]

trilema.com

Ah, you've been drinking the MP kool-aid.  Not surprising that he attracts your ilk.  The mentally unhinged always rally around MP's deranged war-cries.  I can't take anyone who references or quotes his gutter-spiel seriously.  

Your contribution to bitcoin has been #noted.

[HeRetiK]

But it is still a lie to insinuate the signaling or non-mining full nodes are indicative of the economic majority. That is a social justice warrior lie.

Carlton Banks stated a clear technical fact. I expanded on it. While I obviously can't speak for Carlton Banks I personally definitely never said that SegWit nodes are a reflection of the economic majority -- neither explicitely nor implicitely.

However the market is. And I can't say for sure, of course, but I personally doubt that SegWit-booty-coin would fare well in the market. Even given plenty of room for market manipulation.

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.

Unless you're the Pope of Bitcoin you have no say in what constitutes the canonical Bitcoin blockchain.

[cellard]

the wealthy

When you talk about wealthy, you mean wealthy in general, or Bitcoin wealthy specifically? Because I've seen wealthy ($billionaires) involved in scams such as Ethereum and others, so I doubt all that wealth has any idea of all of this, most are still learning. As far as old money is concerned (the one that owns most of the real state, gold, access to armies, nukes.. etc out there) I doubt they are involved at all in Bitcoin and if they are, they aren't aware of your proposed scenario and are just holding BTC not worried about any of this. All these "Rothschild-Bitcoin" type of connections I've seen are just conspiracy theories as far as im concerned.

The marketplace will decide which fork is more valuable.

As long as the USD is accepted to buy things, they can print as much as it's needed to pump anything they want in the marketplace, and if for some reason they decide to buy the other fork then the rest will follow, and assuming the other end has already sold their share after the split they no longer have selling pressure on it. For how long that would be viable I don't know, but then again, they have managed to keet USD alive for ages even if it should have died already, as long as it's accepted to buy things it will continue being the case.

[Carlton Banks]

The attempts to bury the detection logic about whether SegWit is active on the blockchain does absolutely nothing to prevent a Satoshi blockchain miner from stealing SegWit ”pay to anyone” transactions on the Satoshi protocol blockchain.

Right, and all BTC in segwit addresses on the original blockchain will be protected.


The blockchain must fork for this attack to work, so it's simple really: anyone can create a fork anytime with rules that permit stealing outputs. There's nothing special about choosing a "Segwit booty" approach, any fork can choose to redistribute BTC in any way the creators of the fork see fit. You're trying to say this is somehow a weakness in segwit, it's not.

So, now you've popularised this idea of a "steal from Segwit addresses" fork, what's the reason to do it? Do you have one? Why don't you want to steal from vanity addresses, or Satoshi's coins? All are equally possible when you fork, so why not some other target

[Carlton Banks]

If on any fork of Bitcoin users start signing transactions which are backwards incompatible in a way that they become spendable by anyone, they thus have forked off from Bitcoin.

That’s inherent in the fact that Nakamoto proof-of-work solves the FLP impossibility theorem of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus, by being only probabilistically and never 100% final.

Since the legacy protocol can never be 100% finalized, then any fork which proposes to create transactions which are spendable by anyone in the legacy protocol, is thus inherently a technological flaw.

This statement is self contradictory. If old nodes without segwit are incompatible, why are old nodes without segwit still following the Bitcoin blockchain? How are they doing it?

ANYONECANSPEND has existed in Bitcoin since before Segwit was introduced, and I think using it as a way to upgrade signing rules was always at least one of the intentions for ANYONECANSPEND's existence. Old nodes understand ANYONECANSPEND, precisely to maintain compatibility with changes in how transactions are signed. Get a job

[Carlton Banks]

The ANYONECANSPEND exists precisely as an immunity defense so that people can fork off from Bitcoin if they wish to. It provides a way for transactions to be accepted by Satoshi’s protocol while the transition takes place. Otherwise it would be difficult for the Core fork to transition. And of course it also means those who use it, will have forsaken their tokens on the Satoshi protocol.

Which Bitcoin fork used this "transition" feature you speak of? None

[Carlton Banks]

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

[Wind_FURY]

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.

 

[Carlton Banks]

Are you replying in the wrong thread to make things confusing again? Seriously, grow up

[infofront]

I think some of you will find this very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc
I would recommend at least watching from 28:00-33:00 (by that point you'll be hooked  ). Andrew DeSantis explains the importance of the Satoshi address format, the importance in maintaining the continued, shared heritage with the genesis block , and its address format, etc.

He also implies around 31:40 that the Satoshi fork will be very valuable there will be a Satoshi fork, since it contains the last 10 years of data on the blockchain.

There are known and emergent properties of the Satoshi address format that will be lost forever when we switch to bech32 addresses. He posits that this change in address format, which no one seems to question, may break the bitcoin incentive system in unexpected, and even currently unknown, ways.

[Wind_FURY]

Are you replying in the wrong thread to make things confusing again? Seriously, grow up

Haha. I thought it was only me because I was a little stupid to "get" some concepts about Bitcoin, and I swear I thought some of his "theories" might be biased or too extreme and impractical that they will not materialize.

But I believe he is a person to learn from. I hope the other posters will not be afraid to ask him more questions.

I think some of you will find this very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc
I would recommend at least watching from 28:00-33:00 (by that point you'll be hooked  ). Andrew DeSantis explains the importance of the Satoshi address format, the importance in maintaining the continued, shared heritage with the genesis block , and its address format, etc.

He also implies around 31:40 that the Satoshi fork will be very valuable there will be a Satoshi fork, since it contains the last 10 years of data on the blockchain.

There are known and emergent properties of the Satoshi address format that will be lost forever when we switch to bech32 addresses. He posits that this change in address format, which no one seems to question, may break the bitcoin incentive system in unexpected, and even currently unknown, ways.

Thanks. I will watch it later.