Why bitcoin is not censorship resistent.

[davis196]

I'm not an expert,but here's my hypothesis.I might be wrong.
If a miner or a group of miners decides to block transactions for their own benefit(or to comply with regulations or government will),then the majority of developers and users inside the Bitcoin Core network will just hardfork and split the BTC core blockchain,leaving all those miners with worthless forked pseudo-Bitcoin shitcoins and no market support.
The Bitcoin community is more flexible and adaptive than you think.I don't get your point of asking a question that has been discussed 100 times before on the forum.Just search for some old threads about this topic,instead of creating your thread.

[bitmover]

You can't send bitcoins to anywhere if your addresses is blacklisted and will never get confirmed.

I decided to dig into this subject a little more.

I looked into an Antonopoulos video exactly about this subject here

Begins at 34minutes.

He explains that to consistently block transaction from an address there should have been a group of miners with 51% hash power. Those miners would need to refuse to add transactions from those addresses AND to orphan blocks that include transactions from that addresses. This would be litteraly a 51% attack, coordinate globally.

So, practically impossible.

To summary:

so a miner can refuse to include a transaction, but all miners will eventually process a transaction as a whole because of the competition that exists in the system. You have to stop all of them (miners) in order to have meaningful censorship emerge in bitcoin

I think you should watch it.

[hv_]

You can't send bitcoins to anywhere if your addresses is blacklisted and will never get confirmed.

I decided to dig into this subject a little more.

I looked into an Antonopoulos video exactly about this subject here

Begins at 34minutes.

He explains that to consistently block transaction from an address there should have been a group of miners with 51% hash power. Those miners would need to refuse to add transactions from those addresses AND to orphan blocks that include transactions from that addresses. This would be litteraly a 51% attack, coordinate globally.

So, practically impossible.

To summary:

so a miner can refuse to include a transaction, but all miners will eventually process a transaction as a whole because of the competition that exists in the system. You have to stop all of them (miners) in order to have meaningful censorship emerge in bitcoin

I think you should watch it.

Bigger miners are just ... big and therefore need to follow any regulation to lower ANY risks

Just think from their side, running business, need banks and electricity and ppl and ....

There are only 3-4 miners that big - just enough to decide on what's needed

[bitmover]

Bigger miners are just ... big and therefore need to follow any regulation to lower ANY risks

Just think from their side, running business, need banks and electricity and ppl and ....

There are only 3-4 miners that big - just enough to decide on what's needed

No regulation can force a miner to control what other miners do.

You are saying that a supposed regulation, which doesn't exist, that would force miners to orphan blocks which contain transactions not mined by them. You are basically saying that a regulation would force miners to make a 51% attack on the network, which they can't do because they do not have the hash power.

Based on that supposed regulation which doesn't exist, a mining centralization of 4 miners which also doesn't exist, you are saying that bitcoin is not censorship resistant...

You two are just spreading misinformation, or talking about things you don't fully understand.


Even if the majority of the 4 biggest mining pools decided to blacklist an address they would need to have 51% of hashpower (but they wouldn't, because small miners would move their hashrate to another pool).
 2 other big pools could mine 2 subsequent blocks with that "blacklisted" addresses transaction.

Then the 4 mining pools would be 2 blocks behind, in the shortest chain. They would have to outpace the longest chain, creating a parallel blockchain, competing with the rest of the network. This would literally be an attempt to do a 51% attack, but miners would be slowing move their hashpower to the longest chain, as they wouldn't like to lose money in the shortest chain...

That odds of that to happen are very low. Basically for nothing, as no regulation could do anything against those miners as they didn't mine the block containing the blacklisted address. (also, that regulation doesn't even exist)

[Ucy]

The reason why monero is under heat and gets delisted is because its not compatible with current active laws. Its anonymous and not transparent.

I believe it should've been
Anonymous and Transparent. Users could be anonymous if they choose to. Anonymity is a Right as long as the Anonymous Users can always be tracked whenever serious crime is committed by them.

In regards to Bitcoin not being Censorship Resistant due to the reason given, I think if the mining/consensus hardware are portable, mobile and easy to carry around, that will greatly contribute/improve its Censorship resistant feature, as it was meant to be by Satoshi. Bitcoin is meant to be very Censorship Resistant... The censorship resistant feature can be improved and maintained if the users insist on well decentralized participation on the network. The Network, Nodes/mining,  Network Consensus, Software , Regulations , etc should be well decentralized, anonymity-friendly/privacy-friendly, very transparent, etc

[?QuestionMark?]

 More fun: I expect any other read / 'relay' node (not mining / writing granted) will slow down miners ...

That's the problem with all those raspberry pi nodes. They don't affect the network in any way, besides making it just slower. Blockchains in general should not be designed to run on a desktop pc and certainly not on a raspberry pi. Full nodes (mining) should only run by people or companies who can afford the big infrastructure. Doesn't matter if mining pool or mining facility. That's why the 1MB block size limit of BTC is the worst thing you can do. 1MB blocks just that some people can run them on their small device and think their now a "rebel" or something similar. I don't want small nodes who only damage the network. I want big miner who mine terabyte blocks.

[?QuestionMark?]

Based on that supposed regulation which doesn't exist, a mining centralization of 4 miners which also doesn't exist, you are saying that bitcoin is not censorship resistant...

Since the beginning of bitcoin not even a hundred different people/organizations mined a block. So there were never more than 100 miners since 2008.

Today its about 30. And that is mining centralization. And that's a good thing, and not a bad thing at all. The cost of mining and the cost of million dollar infrastructure which makes it to expensive to cheat makes bitcoin secure. The bitcoin network is secured by economic, and not by cryptography.

[ranochigo]

That's the problem with all those raspberry pi nodes. They don't affect the network in any way, besides making it just slower.

RPi nodes are generally still a net positive to the network. Having more nodes will increase redundancy and bring about a greater decentralization. It doesn't make it slower; block validation or transaction validation are sufficiently fast for RPi. The main bottleneck that they experience is with their own synchronization which is perceived to be fairly slow. With the current relaying system in Bitcoin Core, you don't actually have to do a full validation before sending the blocks provided that both connected nodes are operating in high bandwidth mode.

Full nodes (mining) should only run by people or companies who can afford the big infrastructure. Doesn't matter if mining pool or mining facility. That's why the 1MB block size limit of BTC is the worst thing you can do. 1MB blocks just that some people can run them on their small device and think their now a "rebel" or something similar. I don't want small nodes who only damage the network. I want big miner who mine terabyte blocks.

I want to be able to verify the transactions and the blocks fully and not be in the mercy of people who wield the power to do anything they want. Running a full node doesn't necessarily require you to mine and by definition a full node is not [necessarily] a mining node. 1MB blocks ensures that people doesn't have to trust someone else and can validate everything for themselves.

Since the beginning of bitcoin not even a hundred different people/organizations mined a block. So there were never more than 100 miners since 2008.

Today its about 30. And that is mining centralization. And that's a good thing, and not a bad thing at all. The cost of mining and the cost of million dollar infrastructure which makes it to expensive to cheat makes bitcoin secure. The bitcoin network is secured by economic, and not by cryptography.

If you're counting the thousands of miners who are connecting to a pool to mine then sure. I'm not sure about your first statement; there are certainly more than a hundred that has ever mined a block. The whitepaper actually mentions about the game theory behind this, so it's really nothing new.

I've interacted with you for quite a few times and I can't help but think that there is some ulterior motives behind the posts and the assertions that you're making.

[hv_]

More fun: I expect any other read / 'relay' node (not mining / writing granted) will slow down miners ...

That's the problem with all those raspberry pi nodes. They don't affect the network in any way, besides making it just slower. Blockchains in general should not be designed to run on a desktop pc and certainly not on a raspberry pi. Full nodes (mining) should only run by people or companies who can afford the big infrastructure. Doesn't matter if mining pool or mining facility. That's why the 1MB block size limit of BTC is the worst thing you can do. 1MB blocks just that some people can run them on their small device and think their now a "rebel" or something similar. I don't want small nodes who only damage the network. I want big miner who mine terabyte blocks.

Economics solves that - over time

Bitcoin has very nice game theo setup - I m not the big master in such and was told it's not a Nash Equi, rather some leader / big miner driven - with only local equilibriums (like thermo dynamics at lower / finite scale)

[hv_]

Bigger miners are just ... big and therefore need to follow any regulation to lower ANY risks

Just think from their side, running business, need banks and electricity and ppl and ....

There are only 3-4 miners that big - just enough to decide on what's needed

No regulation can force a miner to control what other miners do.

You are saying that a supposed regulation, which doesn't exist, that would force miners to orphan blocks which contain transactions not mined by them. You are basically saying that a regulation would force miners to make a 51% attack on the network, which they can't do because they do not have the hash power.

Based on that supposed regulation which doesn't exist, a mining centralization of 4 miners which also doesn't exist, you are saying that bitcoin is not censorship resistant...

You two are just spreading misinformation, or talking about things you don't fully understand.


Even if the majority of the 4 biggest mining pools decided to blacklist an address they would need to have 51% of hashpower (but they wouldn't, because small miners would move their hashrate to another pool).
 2 other big pools could mine 2 subsequent blocks with that "blacklisted" addresses transaction.

Then the 4 mining pools would be 2 blocks behind, in the shortest chain. They would have to outpace the longest chain, creating a parallel blockchain, competing with the rest of the network. This would literally be an attempt to do a 51% attack, but miners would be slowing move their hashpower to the longest chain, as they wouldn't like to lose money in the shortest chain...

That odds of that to happen are very low. Basically for nothing, as no regulation could do anything against those miners as they didn't mine the block containing the blacklisted address. (also, that regulation doesn't even exist)

We've seen US + EU + ... have been able to shut down global online gaming around 2005 -> why there is a poker client in original Satoshi code ....

same for Liberty Reserve little after


same as ... lot's of other things also Bitcoin related


We just haven't see it yet, this year getting interesting tho

(and why ETH wants PoS now ...)

[DooMAD]

We've seen US + EU + ... have been able to shut down global online gaming around 2005 -> why there is a poker client in original Satoshi code ....

same for Liberty Reserve little after


same as ... lot's of other things also Bitcoin related


We just haven't see it yet, this year getting interesting tho

(and why ETH wants PoS now ...)

Just so I've got this straight...

You constantly advocate a pro-regulation stance when it comes to crypto.  Then you talk about resistance to regulatory shutdown as though unregulated networks are easier to shut down than regulated ones?

How do you not comprehend the part where, if you work together alongside regulators, they decide if or when to pull the plug?  They'll know exactly how to do it because you'll have told them.  They will know how it works and where the 'off' button is.  Libra/whatever-it's-called-now still hasn't left the drawing board because they haven't got the approval they need from the bureaucrats.

If Bitcoin hadn't been launched as a permissionless project, if it had sought approval from those in charge before being unleashed unto the world, none of us would even be here having this conversation.  So stop trying to turn every single topic into "regulation is good because my fraudulent cult leader said so".

[?QuestionMark?]

That's the problem with all those raspberry pi nodes. They don't affect the network in any way, besides making it just slower.

RPi nodes are generally still a net positive to the network. Having more nodes will increase redundancy and bring about a greater decentralization. It doesn't make it slower; block validation or transaction validation are sufficiently fast for RPi. The main bottleneck that they experience is with their own synchronization which is perceived to be fairly slow. With the current relaying system in Bitcoin Core, you don't actually have to do a full validation before sending the blocks provided that both connected nodes are operating in high bandwidth mode.

That block validation is sufficiently fast for Raspberry pi is how it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if 1000 nodes are running besides the miners. If all the miners go down, you're small nodes are worth, as before, nothing. But due to economic miners won't go down. Miners want to be connect to miners. And not with some small nodes. Just because of those worthless nodes we have this whole headache with block size debates and even worse SegWit which made everything more complicated.
If bitcoin would be how it should be, things like "Hard Forks" wouldn't exists. Miners can't allow them self to not upgrade and mine on a alternative blockchain which makes them lose millions. See more below.
At the SegWit soft fork the Bitcoin Core developers needed at least 95% support from the miners. Without surprise they got 100%. The same result you would get on block size adjusting. They would follow. They have to follow.

Hard Forks don't exists. It just exists because of protecting nodes, who don't do anything, from nothing.
If the block size adjusts and some small nodes hard forks or goes down, nobody should or has to care. It would be even good. The real people who protect and make bitcoin secure, the miners, are up and running.

Full nodes (mining) should only run by people or companies who can afford the big infrastructure. Doesn't matter if mining pool or mining facility. That's why the 1MB block size limit of BTC is the worst thing you can do. 1MB blocks just that some people can run them on their small device and think their now a "rebel" or something similar. I don't want small nodes who only damage the network. I want big miner who mine terabyte blocks.

I want to be able to verify the transactions and the blocks fully and not be in the mercy of people who wield the power to do anything they want. Running a full node doesn't necessarily require you to mine and by definition a full node is not [necessarily] a mining node. 1MB blocks ensures that people doesn't have to trust someone else and can validate everything for themselves.

I respect that you want to validate yourself. The thing is you don't need to. You also are not giving away power. The more popular and more user bitcoin gets, the more are miners forced by economic principles to get less fraudulent. Which they are not even at the beginning. The more user the higher the mining competition. A big miner has made a long term multi million dollar investment.  He will never cheat or provide a weak infrastructure. He is always forced by the market to get better. Get better infrastructure. Better and safer facilities. Better Anti-Doss system. Better computation power. Better fiber cables. And if they don't to that or try to cheat, they will go down. Which makes them lose all their long term investment. And not a single businessman or investor does that and thinks like that. Mining will be one of the most competitive, when not the most, ever existed. Which makes it that secure! Every miner wants to be the best so they need the best infrastructure etc.

You as a user can use SPV with the block headers. Or applications in the future from developers who will use miner apis. The future of bitcoin is big mining facilities and big mining pools with mining devices all round the world. Mining facilities bigger than oil refineries, in which millions of mining device are running. Big mining facilities who mine petabye blocks and send them over their petabyte fiber cables.

The math is simple: Would you trust someone who dies when he lies? Yes you would.

That is what secures bitcoin. Economic and not cryptography.

Well if Bitcoin Core doesn't wake up and improve, then it won't be BTC who takes over the world. It will be some other coin.

By definition a Node is a miner and nothing else. Its on the original whitepaper:

The steps to run the network are as follows:
1)New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2)Each node collects new transactions into a block.  
3)Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4)When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5)Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6)Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in thechain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

I've interacted with you for quite a few times and I can't help but think that there is some ulterior motives behind the posts and the assertions that you're making.

Yes you are completely right. I posted this on purpose.

[DooMAD]

By definition a Node is a miner and nothing else. Its on the original whitepaper:

Definitions need to keep pace with the times.  Evolution has no patience for nostalgia.  If you need evidence of this, you're free to run an earlier version of Bitcoin's code from the same era the whitepaper was published.  Maybe then you'll realise things have moved on a little.  Non-mining nodes evolved out of necessity and, much like Bitcoin itself, can't be un-invented.

[ranochigo]

That block validation is sufficiently fast for Raspberry pi is how it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if 1000 nodes are running besides the miners. If all the miners go down, you're small nodes are worth, as before, nothing. But due to economic miners won't go down. Miners want to be connect to miners. And not with some small nodes. Just because of those worthless nodes we have this whole headache with block size debates and even worse SegWit which made everything more complicated.

The disagreements with bigger blocks arises from the different camps supporting either Segwit or larger blocks. Full nodes are essentially the cogs within the blockchain which enforces the rules for SPV clients as well as those which relies on them for information. The pools actually have direct connection to each other, as demonstrated by the 2015 SPV mining forks. It doesn't matter if there is thousands of very slow nodes; miners will always connect to each other for the best chances, see FIBRE and similar implementations.

If bitcoin would be how it should be, things like "Hard Forks" wouldn't exists. Miners can't allow them self to not upgrade and mine on a alternative blockchain which makes them lose millions. See more below.
At the SegWit soft fork the Bitcoin Core developers needed at least 95% support from the miners. Without surprise they got 100%. The same result you would get on block size adjusting. They would follow. They have to follow.

Hard Forks don't exists. It just exists because of protecting nodes, who don't do anything, from nothing.
If the block size adjusts and some small nodes hard forks or goes down, nobody should or has to care. It would be even good. The real people who protect and make bitcoin secure, the miners, are up and running.

Hard fork exists because nodes are the ones which has a say in what rules Bitcoin should enforce and thus resulting in older versions of it being incompatible solely because they are enforcing the older rules, miners should not be able to dictate the protocol rules. Without a full node, how do you ensure that miners won't start mining 1000BTC block rewards? Full nodes are the ones enforcing it, you are not validating the block if you are running SPV client. It seems far easier for the miners to just collude and cheat everyone else if people are not able to verify the blocks.

Not all of the entities actually agreed to Segwit in the end, that is why Bitcoin Cash was spawned.

I respect that you want to validate yourself. The thing is you don't need to. You also are not giving away power. The more popular and more user bitcoin gets, the more are miners forced by economic principles to get less fraudulent. Which they are not even at the beginning. The more user the higher the mining competition. A big miner has made a long term multi million dollar investment.  He will never cheat or provide a weak infrastructure. He is always forced by the market to get better. Get better infrastructure. Better and safer facilities. Better Anti-Doss system. Better computation power. Better fiber cables. And if they don't to that or try to cheat, they will go down. Which makes them lose all their long term investment. And not a single businessman or investor does that and thinks like that. Mining will be one of the most competitive, when not the most, ever existed. Which makes it that secure! Every miner wants to be the best so they need the best infrastructure etc.

You as a user can use SPV with the block headers. Or applications in the future from developers who will use miner apis. The future of bitcoin is big mining facilities and big mining pools with mining devices all round the world. Mining facilities bigger than oil refineries, in which millions of mining device are running. Big mining facilities who mine petabye blocks and send them over their petabyte fiber cables.

The math is simple: Would you trust someone who dies when he lies? Yes you would.

That is what secures bitcoin. Economic and not cryptography.

Well if Bitcoin Core doesn't wake up and improve, then it won't be BTC who takes over the world. It will be some other coin.

The idea behind Bitcoin is being trustless. Only those who can verify the blocks (ie full nodes) are able to verify that the blocks are following the rules as stated. SPV clients do not verify anything; they just follow the longest chain. There is no economic principles in play if you were to centralized mining to that extent; no one else being able to verify the blocks essentially means that everyone has to trust the miners. I'm surprised how your argument went from Bitcoin being easily manipulated by governments through ridiculous policies to making it even easier to manipulate by putting all the power into a small group of miners.

Nodes are what keeps the network secure. Without validating nodes, miners can do anything that they want with no concept of game theory or economic principle.

By definition a Node is a miner and nothing else. Its on the original whitepaper:

The steps to run the network are as follows:
1)New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2)Each node collects new transactions into a block.  
3)Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4)When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5)Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6)Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in thechain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

Again, ASICs didn't exist. One CPU One Vote was Satoshi's idea. Pools didn't exist. Bitcoin was stated as a currency for micropayments. By definition, a full node is one that downloads and validates the entire block. SPV concept was mentioned in the whitepaper as well.

[hv_]

The powers are only with miners, who decide on what is the longer chain, they WRITE it

any other 'node' just is a read-only listener - can say 'oh - my verify failed' and just gets out of sync (they can be only a follower and sign with a 'like' - or get off, that much powers...)

Miners get incentive, they look for good node and data transfer - first prio: with other miners, if not - earn less

[?QuestionMark?]

If bitcoin would be how it should be, things like "Hard Forks" wouldn't exists. Miners can't allow them self to not upgrade and mine on a alternative blockchain which makes them lose millions. See more below.
At the SegWit soft fork the Bitcoin Core developers needed at least 95% support from the miners. Without surprise they got 100%. The same result you would get on block size adjusting. They would follow. They have to follow.

Hard Forks don't exists. It just exists because of protecting nodes, who don't do anything, from nothing.
If the block size adjusts and some small nodes hard forks or goes down, nobody should or has to care. It would be even good. The real people who protect and make bitcoin secure, the miners, are up and running.

Hard fork exists because nodes are the ones which has a say in what rules Bitcoin should enforce and thus resulting in older versions of it being incompatible solely because they are enforcing the older rules, miners should not be able to dictate the protocol rules. Without a full node, how do you ensure that miners won't start mining 1000BTC block rewards? Full nodes are the ones enforcing it, you are not validating the block if you are running SPV client. It seems far easier for the miners to just collude and cheat everyone else if people are not able to verify the blocks.

Not all of the entities actually agreed to Segwit in the end, that is why Bitcoin Cash was spawned.

As described in my pre posts, miners can't cheat. If a miner creates a 10000 btc coinbase all the other nodes would reject it. So the miner wasted a lot of time and money for nothing. They wouldn't also create a conspire group to fraud the world. Since anyone can join and also start mining. And you can't spend a 10000btc coinbase output. To nobody and nowhere. Miners are forced to act honest. And If they don't, you would find out immediately, and since the you know who they are and where they they have a very big problem. To just name the most harmless, not a single wallet will connect to them anymore. If you cheat as a miner you go out of business, you don't just lose millions of dollars, you lose everything. You lose also trust and many other things.

As you saw and answered some of my questions in the past I studied a few days SegWit to understand what is. And my final conclusion is its horrible. Bitcoin has already a bad user experience and they dropped something with made everything more complicated. After I read It got started by Blockstream the reason was clear.

The idea behind Bitcoin is being trustless. Only those who can verify the blocks (ie full nodes) are able to verify that the blocks are following the rules as stated. SPV clients do not verify anything; they just follow the longest chain. There is no economic principles in play if you were to centralized mining to that extent; no one else being able to verify the blocks essentially means that everyone has to trust the miners. I'm surprised how your argument went from Bitcoin being easily manipulated by governments through ridiculous policies to making it even easier to manipulate by putting all the power into a small group of miners.

Nodes are what keeps the network secure. Without validating nodes, miners can do anything that they want with no concept of game theory or economic principle.

Everyone on the world can still join the network and try to mine a block. I never said something different. And the miners can't cheat due to all my points listed in my pre post. Miners can't do what they want. They are not able to. This has a lot to do with economics. Its still a P2P network. From person to person. The miner is just securing the network and confirming your transaction.

And again, those node do nothing.

But if people want to verify small blocks for the rest of your life and get overtaken by other projects, go on.

If you want to support all those points, go on:

- A project which is not bitcoin anymore since a few years but still call them self bitcoin. ITS NOT P2P DIGITAL CASH ANYMORE.
- Want to create a "digital gold" or "store of value" system and a speculative asset.
- Want to support a project where they where more merchants accepting bitcoin in 2014 than now.
- Want to support a project which got infiltrated and overtaken by companies like blockstream and big banks with the goal to keep it weak and make money on things which bitcoin can't .

But you are all free, so it's your choice.

I don't understand why people like Musk and Michael Saylor promote and invest in it. Michael Saylor has a not a single idea what bitcoin is in any aspect and like musk he has a very high self interest.

Not even the ceo of the largest crypto exchange worldwide understands what bitcoin is and is agreeing on every point Michael Saylor is saying. It is NOT digital gold.

Nobody on this world can afford a 14 USD fee. I checked the average tx fee for many months now and its 10-24 USD!! Not a single middle class worker can afford this. Also not a millionaire.
The whole concept of using Bitcoin as digital cash is killed.

Why are people talking about BTC is banking the unbanked?? Lets take a look at country's like India. How should a guy in India with a monthly salary of 230 USD (25% of India) afford a 14 USD fee when making purchases for a few cent for a coffee??

You need huge blocks. And very low transaction fees. Not a cent. Not half of a cent. A 1000th of a cent. Or better a 10000th.
Real nodes (miners) have to be active. So bitcoin can benefit the whole world in every corner of the world.

So know BTC is for traders, speculators, billionaires and 100k a year salary people who invest in bitcoin due to heavy news with probably thinking you need to register with an email to use bitcoin.

I was very exited about Bitcoin Core after reading books from people like Andreas. I knew the technical part. But didn't questioned anything. I accepted the 1MB block size limit. I thought running a node on my home computer would do something. Know I know its not.

But I didn't knew what bitcoin really is about and its true purpose. Well, I thought that time

But I started learning more, studying myself, trying a lot and questioning a lot. Know I'm awake and I know what bitcoin is about and how it has to be done. I also know that millions of people are still sleeping...

BTC is dead to me.

By definition a Node is a miner and nothing else. Its on the original whitepaper:

The steps to run the network are as follows:
1)New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2)Each node collects new transactions into a block.  
3)Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4)When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5)Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6)Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in thechain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

Again, ASICs didn't exist. One CPU One Vote was Satoshi's idea. Pools didn't exist. Bitcoin was stated as a currency for micropayments. By definition, a full node is one that downloads and validates the entire block. SPV concept was mentioned in the whitepaper as well.

A node is a miner and nothing else.

[DooMAD]

BTC is dead to me.

Oh no!  What have we done?  In that case we'll "fix" it right away.  

Spare us the dramatics.  The simple fact is, no protocol can satisfy everyone.  Someone is always going to believe they could do it better if people just embraced their "genius".  But just about every one of those narcissists seem to forget that they aren't the only user on the network and other people are enforcing their will by running the code that suits them.  So if you're not happy, tough shit.  It's a collaborative effort, so if you don't want to take part, then don't.

The whole "non-mining nodes don't matter" fallacy is obviously false, because it's those same non-mining nodes that prevent the network functioning how you would want it to.  If they didn't matter, they wouldn't prove an insurmountable obstacle to your hot air and wishful thinking.

[Webetcoins]

We’ll ever since everything about Bitcoin started going big it has become something else that is entirely different from what it was initially meant to be. From the beginning it was very easy to mine Bitcoin as you can just sit at home and get yourself a miner and a computer and start mining as much as you can now.

But, this time around things has gotten tougher and you can’t mine Bitcoin alone, you will have to join one of the mining pools out there and most of them are big business which can’t go without registration. They are always going to abide by the laws of any country they are operating from, and there is really nothing miners can do about it. There is not going to be a change for a situation like this one.

[?QuestionMark?]

BTC is dead to me.

Oh no!  What have we done?  In that case we'll "fix" it right away.  

Spare us the dramatics.  The simple fact is, no protocol can satisfy everyone.  Someone is always going to believe they could do it better if people just embraced their "genius".  But just about every one of those narcissists seem to forget that they aren't the only user on the network and other people are enforcing their will by running the code that suits them.  So if you're not happy, tough shit.  It's a collaborative effort, so if you don't want to take part, then don't.

The whole "non-mining nodes don't matter" fallacy is obviously false, because it's those same non-mining nodes that prevent the network functioning how you would want it to.  If they didn't matter, they wouldn't prove an insurmountable obstacle to your hot air and wishful thinking.

The simple fact is, a protocol can satisfy everyone . If you do it correctly the network works for everyone and their desires.

Don't come with things like "a collaborative effort". Bitcoin Core is the complete opposite of it. They work against the people and against bitcoin itself and its future.

Since you have not counter-argued a single one of my arguments, I can't take you serious.

[bitmover]

Since you have not counter-argued a single one of my arguments, I can't take you serious.

How come?

You are talking about things that don't exist.

• Blacklisted addresses that will never be able to get a transaction confirmed (LOL)
• Saying that miners are enforced to accept protocol changes, like segwit and block size adjusts. But you forget (or ignore) that the network refused a blocksize change in 2017, creating Bcash.
  
• You also said that at the most 100 people were able to mine a block. This is so absurd that you don't know what you are talking about. You forgot (or don't know) that thousands teenagers and tech guys were mining full blocks in 2010.

At the SegWit soft fork the Bitcoin Core developers needed at least 95% support from the miners. Without surprise they got 100%. The same result you would get on block size adjusting. They would follow. They have to follow.

So there were never more than 100 miners since 2008.

You are just trolling around. You said you studied about Segwit and you said it sucks just because Faketoshi want to sell his bcash coin which doesn't have segwit. You want to defend  that blocks should be big and nodes are useless, but you don't understand about mempool., block validation, mining difficult, difficult adjustment, bitcoin distribution, protocol changes, and you invented a lot of wrong and false stuff to justify it.

[/list]