> They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus. Not really. Bitcoin's rules de

> They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus. Not really. Bitcoin's rules define what qualifies as a valid block. Users apply those rules to decide what the current blockchain is. If anything, miners are dependent on users accepting the blocks that they mine in order to be able to sell their mining rewards and fees to pay (usually in fiat) for the electricity they use to mine. The real "ruling" happens at the exchanges where BTC is valued. The miners spend efforts finding blocks to add to the blockchain, and can be selective about what transactions they let in. But they are constrained by Bitcoin's rules. They could try changing the rules, but if users don't accept the changes then their blocks won't match the set of rules the users are using and their mining rewards and fees won't have value. Miners are further constrained by "game theory" as they compete against each other. If one miner chooses to exclude transactions another miner is prepared to mine, then the transaction fee on those transactions won't be earned. Mining is competitive, and leaving money on the table like this widely can be expected to be loss making as the cost to mine a block is no lower if there are fewer transactions in it. The one thing miners have going for them is that they already pool their resources so can organise. But so can the exchanges.