BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver

[Wind_FURY]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?

Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.
 

Why then did the NYA not use that strategy for btc1/2X?

[jbreher]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?

News flash: they do.

Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.

Why then did the NYA not use that strategy for btc1/2X?

Apply brain. The question answers itself.

Are you trying to obliquely deny that non-mining validating entities are subject to Sybil attack?

[Wind_FURY]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?

News flash: they do.

Yes they do, if they run their own nodes. But let us ask ourselves this question, "Whose rules are the miners enforcing?"

I believe the answer is easily answered by knowing what nodes the miners are running or what nodes their mining farms are connected to. Which will also give us another question, "Whose rules is the Bitcoin network enforcing, the Core developers or someone else's?"

Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.

Why then did the NYA not use that strategy for btc1/2X?

Apply brain. The question answers itself.

Are you trying to obliquely deny that non-mining validating entities are subject to Sybil attack?

No, but I am confused by own answer. Let me internalize this and answer back later. Hahaha.

[mymenace]

Roger has literally funded the most BTC and BCH startups and charity related crypto donations, hypothetically if Roger was a thief, he's Robin Hood.

Yes we know Roger PAID PEOPLE OFF, they will be dealt with too, you all know who you are

Time to release all the information, no more games, (sick f$%ks playing with peoples lives) +++

I will give 5 10 bitcoin to anyone who gets Roger Ver to return all cryptsy and mtgox users coins.

Crime: Misleading the public on multiple occasions with his multiple projects advising users that they were safe and OK to use

Roger Ver the SOCIALIST

http://voluntaryist.com/tag/roger-ver-how-i-became-a-voluntaryist/

hmmm  , what would that 10btc look like in 5 years 

[jbreher]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?

News flash: they do.

Yes they do, if they run their own nodes.

Another news flash: miners run nodes. Indeed, in the design of Bitcoin, nodes are miners. But nevertheless, whether or not a miner chooses not to run a non-mining validating entity (I suppose this is what you mean when you improperly use the term 'node') has zero to do with the fact that the miners enforce their rules and their rules only.

But let us ask ourselves this question, "Whose rules are the miners enforcing?"

Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

I believe the answer is easily answered by knowing what nodes the miners are running or what nodes their mining farms are connected to. Which will also give us another question, "Whose rules is the Bitcoin network enforcing, the Core developers or someone else's?"

Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

[Wind_FURY]

"Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072

We now understand the centralized nature of #bcash $bch. It is just a UAHF (user activated hard fork) Sybil setup to force the hands of all nodes and miners in the ecosystem. Without this setup @JihanWu & @rogerkver are powerless to control their network.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?

News flash: they do.

Yes they do, if they run their own nodes.

Another news flash: miners run nodes. Indeed, in the design of Bitcoin, nodes are miners. But nevertheless, whether or not a miner chooses not to run a non-mining validating entity (I suppose this is what you mean when you improperly use the term 'node') has zero to do with the fact that the miners enforce their rules and their rules only.

But if they do not run a node themselves then they are delegating the enforcement of the rules to someone else.

But let us ask ourselves this question, "Whose rules are the miners enforcing?"

Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

But what software are the mining pools or the miners running? Bitcoin Core 0.16.1? So are they, together with the other non-mining nodes, under the enforcement of rules developed by the Core developers?

I believe the answer is easily answered by knowing what nodes the miners are running or what nodes their mining farms are connected to. Which will also give us another question, "Whose rules is the Bitcoin network enforcing, the Core developers or someone else's?"

Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

But what design? Does it not apply anymore? Mining has become very specialized, and cartelized or centralized.

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

[jbreher]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

[Wind_FURY]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today. Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split? Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

[jbreher]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?

Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus.
 

Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners.

(grammatical edits)

[franky1]

ok lets set this matter straight.

TL:DR;
summary
hashrate- meaningless bigger hashrate does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos it has lots of hashrate
non-mining usernodes: meaningless more copies does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos many copies exist
non-mining mrchant nodes: has sway. because if a merchant can s a payment. then a pool can spend its reward and users can daytrade/buy stuff

waffle version:
mining pools can change the format of a block to anything they please and within thier community get their friends to download node versions to accept such new block styles. but when other nodes receive the blocks, if they dont fit the others rules the blocks get rejected. ... and it does not matter how much hash power went into the creation of the block. if it doesnt fit the rules, its rejected.

random guy 'jimmy' with just a node in his basement doesnt have sway over the community direction the network changes. and mining pools also cant just send out a new block format that nodes automatically accept new blocks (blocks do not AI rewrite the rules of nodes)

node users need to download a version that accepts the new blocks. again. pools cant just make a new format and magically make old nodes accept it

now heres where the non-mining community do have sway
what needs to happen is the merchants/exchanges which the pools and users use have more non-mining sway. because if a merchant/exchange is not seeing transactions then pools/users cannot spend their funds. so as i said little jimmy cant sway the network but if the majority of merchants/exchanges accept block B format. usually everyone else follows
...
flipping the argument
anyone can set up 20,000 littl jimmys that accept block B format. and also set up a pool of 56exahash accepting block B.. but in the end if coinbase, blockchain.info, bitstamp, (list many othr merchants) and the pools are still block A, merchants and pools will just reject blockB and ban nodes sending out blockB. thus making block B an altcoin that is unspendabl due to no mrchant adoption

end result is no disruption to the block A network. and block B jimmys and 56exahash pool of block B .. but ends up only communicating with their own kind as a altcoin.

the non-mining nodes DO have sway.. but its not home user sway of majority.. its who will accept my money/sees my payment (merchant) sway

believe it or not back in 2012. MTGOX and silkroad.. just 2 nodes had more non-mining community sway than 4000 non-mining nodes. they could have collaberated and said they will only accept blocks/tx of X format/fee/value. and you would have soon seen the pools adapt to it so that the pools could spend their rewards on mtgox. and the 4000 users would have downloaded the new rules so they too could day trade/buy drugs.

take most crap coin scenarios. when an exchange drops a crapcoin. it does not matter how much hashrate that coin had.
or what amount the user node count may rise or drop to. the usernode count made no difference
if theres no where to spend it. that crap coin dies off, miners switch their asics over to another coin that is acceptable to exchanges. and unless the community can hold out and rally other exchanges to take that crap coin on, the community moves to another coin too. crying that they are left with a bag of crap thats now worthless

it does not matter if there are 2million copies of the same blockchain or just 7000 copies. if the 7000 copies are merchants. then the 1.999,300 user nodes could decide to reject blocks. but then they are rejcting blocks of tx's that merchants recognise. thus the usernodes are just separating themselves from being able to spend thir own funds.. basically punishing themselves to download and hold blocks that cant be spent

[Wind_FURY]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?

Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus.

I don't know, but I believe either one of them, separated, without consensus, will not achieve anything. The top Bitcoin merchants tried it through 2X, but without the smaller merchants support and the community they have nothing.
 

Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners.

(grammatical edits)

I believe it is not that simple. It is misinforming to simply say "they will".

[jbreher]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?

Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus.

I don't know, but I believe either one of them, separated, without consensus, will not achieve anything. The top Bitcoin merchants tried it through 2X, but without the smaller merchants support and the community they have nothing.

So you are implying that 'top Bitcoin merchants' and miners are the same group?

Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners.

(grammatical edits)

I believe it is not that simple. It is misinforming to simply say "they will".

So do you believe that, under the (false) hypothetical that non-mining validators have power over the consensus rules, that miners bent on changing the rules would not spin up an overwhelming count of such non-mining validators?

[Wind_FURY]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

But if the miners came to decide to do a Sybil attack because it is "easy", do you believe that the economic majority running non-mining nodes will follow? Would it not cause another chain-split? Do you really believe that the miner's chain will be called "the Bitcoin"?

On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?

Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus.

I don't know, but I believe either one of them, separated, without consensus, will not achieve anything. The top Bitcoin merchants tried it through 2X, but without the smaller merchants support and the community they have nothing.

So you are implying that 'top Bitcoin merchants' and miners are the same group?

Not all the time. But the NYA signatories consisted of the top Bitcoin merchants and services, and 83% of the total hashrate. They supported the hard fork to a 2mb block size, but the community, who ran non-mining nodes that can easily be "Sybilized" were the ones followed. Why?

Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners.

(grammatical edits)

I believe it is not that simple. It is misinforming to simply say "they will".

So do you believe that, under the (false) hypothetical that non-mining validators have power over the consensus rules, that miners bent on changing the rules would not spin up an overwhelming count of such non-mining validators?

Would it be the economically correct decision for miners to do a Sybil attack on Bitcoin?

[bubblebubble]

It they don't hide themself probably the idea is to stress the blockchain to reduce BCH adoption, against Ver's endorsements.

[Wind_FURY]

Speaking of Sybil attacks, who controls the Alibaba nodes in Bitcoin Cash? Is it Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or Jihan Wu? Those nodes might be used to force a hard fork to the direction of who controls them on the whole network.

[jbreher]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?

Yes, it answered the question fully. There is no way of knowing what the motivation of any party is, as that is internal to their mind only. All we can know is what happened - which is that miners activated Segwit.

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

But if the miners came to decide to do a Sybil attack because it is "easy", do you believe that the economic majority running non-mining nodes will follow? Would it not cause another chain-split? Do you really believe that the miner's chain will be called "the Bitcoin"?

Why are you dodging my question? Answer the question I posed to you above.

And again, you seem to be laboring under some delusion that non-mining validators have some relation to economic power. What is your justification for this assumption?

[mymenace]

Speaking of Sybil attacks, who controls the Alibaba nodes in Bitcoin Cash? Is it Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or Jihan Wu? Those nodes might be used to force a hard fork to the direction of who controls them on the whole network.

You do realize who you are arguing with

[jbreher]

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

[mymenace]

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

does not matter what you believe in

Future proves past

nice timing

[pooya87]

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?