5 ms·

This seems incorrect. Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? It does not seem as if a process that simply reads blocks but does not add an

by dpkp 9y ago

This seems incorrect. Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? It does not seem as if a process that simply reads blocks but does not add any hashrate is participating in the network as I understand it.

stale2002 9y ago
This is a hotly debated point. I don't think there are any Satoshi quotes that definitely prove what he intended. But there are some quotes of him talking about data centers and the like. The miners vs nodes vs blocksize/scaling debate just wasn't a thing that anyone was thinking about back then.
justrobert 9y ago
A node is just a computer that has the whole blockchain. A standard node will almost never produce a single new block. For that, you need custom asic or luck.
psyc 9y ago
Nodes can mine, but they don't have to. They participate in validation, which is distinct from mining.
- dpkp 9y ago
  That seems inconsistent with the paper. For example, from the conclusion: [Nodes] 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. I do see the separate section on "Simplified Payment Verification", which does seem distinct from mining. Is that what you are referring to?
  - psyc 9y ago
    I'm referring to how the network is actually implemented. The paper is simply vague on the point.
  - dmm 9y ago
    It's very possible he never imagined* a non-mining full-node(as opposed to an spv node). Regardless full-nodes do enforce the consensus rules and reject invalid blocks. * Another phenomenon he didn't imagine was mining pools, which drastically changed the dynamics of mining.
    - dpkp 9y ago
      *Or she. But that's an interesting point re mining pools. Do you have any links to more information about how they drastically changed dynamics?
      - jacksproit 9y ago
        *Or they.
    - warboat 9y ago
      mining pools only group hashpower for the purpose of reducing variance and distributing payment. The mining pool does not dictate what the individual miners in the pool can and cannot do. Individual miners can enter and leave mining pools at will. Mining pools change nothing. Non-mining nodes enforce nothing without proof-of-work.
      - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        And yet here we are seeing off four hostile fork attempts in a couple of years (xt/classic/bu/2x). You'd think after four failures in a row, all failing for exactly the same reason, that the people supporting the failures might learn why they fail. But here we are. Explaining why they fail, after they fail, and yet the supporters of the failures are trying to assert that even though they fail, they understand the system. Without even acknowledging that they have failed, let alone why.
        warboat 9y ago
        non-mining nodes attributed nothing to the failure of those forks. Look, you can stay stupid forever, it's ok, stupid people can still run nodes and use bitcoins.
- dmm 9y ago
  You're right, a non-mining node still enforces the consensus rules. A non-mining node will reject any invalid blocks. Even if I controlled 100% of the mining hashrate I could not create a block that did something to violate the consensus rules. For example I couldn't mine a block that resulted in >21MM bitcoins.
  - sobani 9y ago
    You can definitely 'mine' such a block. The problem is getting the rest of the network to accept it. In fact, with Bitcoin Cash you can basically see what happens if blocks are created according to different rules. However I image if suddenl 100% of the miners decided 42MM bitcoins is better (because 42), something a lot of users would be opposed to (printing money), things would become 'interesting'.
Frogolocalypse 9y ago
> Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? No. It is only the validation that is important, because it is only the validation that ensures that consensus is maintained between nodes, and valid transactions can be included in the blockchain. Nodes even define the algorithm that miners must use in order to produce valid blocks. There has been a hard education for people over the past year that have carried an incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works, and that has been encouraged by centralized companies that are attempting to wrest control of bitcoin away from its nodes. There have been four wildly unsuccessful hostile fork attempts (XT/Classic/BU/2x), and two in which alt-coins were forked (BCH/BGLD) from bitcoin in order to attempt to convince people to use their alt-coin instead of bitcoin. All of these attempts have been failures, because all of these attempts have not understood how bitcoin works, and the fact that nodes are the peers in bitcoin, and they police and enforce consensus.
- dpkp 9y ago
  I guess I just have never found support for that in the nakamoto paper. You obviously have strong feelings about it, and I'm not trying to provoke an argument. I just still don't understand where in the paper there is any discussion of non-mining nodes. The only place I can find mention of nodes that are not working on constructing new blocks on the network is in Section 8 re: the simplified verification protocol.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    Perhaps it should give you pause with that belief structure when you realize the word 'mining' doesn't even exist in the bitcoin whitepaper. It is only the nodes that exist, because it is only the nodes that validate, and everything that didn't have anything to do with validation is rightly considered a secondary concern of the protocol. So there are nodes, which are peers. And there are people who need nodes for performing bitcoin transactions, and some of those people are miners, and some of them are just making good-ol-fashioned transactions. The correct term is "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which create blocks". Or "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which are payments." Download it for yourself and see. https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
riprowan 9y ago
> Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? Yes, see section 5 of the white paper referenced in OP. It is quite clear what "peer" means in the context of Bitcoin. Others are mistaken here.

by dpkp 9y ago

stale2002 9y ago

This is a hotly debated point. I don't think there are any Satoshi quotes that definitely prove what he intended. But there are some quotes of him talking about data centers and the like. The miners vs nodes vs blocksize/scaling debate just wasn't a thing that anyone was thinking about back then.

justrobert 9y ago

A node is just a computer that has the whole blockchain. A standard node will almost never produce a single new block. For that, you need custom asic or luck.

psyc 9y ago

Nodes can mine, but they don't have to. They participate in validation, which is distinct from mining.

dpkp 9y ago
That seems inconsistent with the paper. For example, from the conclusion: [Nodes] 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. I do see the separate section on "Simplified Payment Verification", which does seem distinct from mining. Is that what you are referring to?
- psyc 9y ago
  I'm referring to how the network is actually implemented. The paper is simply vague on the point.
- dmm 9y ago
  It's very possible he never imagined* a non-mining full-node(as opposed to an spv node). Regardless full-nodes do enforce the consensus rules and reject invalid blocks. * Another phenomenon he didn't imagine was mining pools, which drastically changed the dynamics of mining.
  - dpkp 9y ago
    *Or she. But that's an interesting point re mining pools. Do you have any links to more information about how they drastically changed dynamics?
    - jacksproit 9y ago
      *Or they.
  - warboat 9y ago
    mining pools only group hashpower for the purpose of reducing variance and distributing payment. The mining pool does not dictate what the individual miners in the pool can and cannot do. Individual miners can enter and leave mining pools at will. Mining pools change nothing. Non-mining nodes enforce nothing without proof-of-work.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      And yet here we are seeing off four hostile fork attempts in a couple of years (xt/classic/bu/2x). You'd think after four failures in a row, all failing for exactly the same reason, that the people supporting the failures might learn why they fail. But here we are. Explaining why they fail, after they fail, and yet the supporters of the failures are trying to assert that even though they fail, they understand the system. Without even acknowledging that they have failed, let alone why.
      - warboat 9y ago
        non-mining nodes attributed nothing to the failure of those forks. Look, you can stay stupid forever, it's ok, stupid people can still run nodes and use bitcoins.
dmm 9y ago
You're right, a non-mining node still enforces the consensus rules. A non-mining node will reject any invalid blocks. Even if I controlled 100% of the mining hashrate I could not create a block that did something to violate the consensus rules. For example I couldn't mine a block that resulted in >21MM bitcoins.
- sobani 9y ago
  You can definitely 'mine' such a block. The problem is getting the rest of the network to accept it. In fact, with Bitcoin Cash you can basically see what happens if blocks are created according to different rules. However I image if suddenl 100% of the miners decided 42MM bitcoins is better (because 42), something a lot of users would be opposed to (printing money), things would become 'interesting'.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago

> Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? No. It is only the validation that is important, because it is only the validation that ensures that consensus is maintained between nodes, and valid transactions can be included in the blockchain. Nodes even define the algorithm that miners must use in order to produce valid blocks. There has been a hard education for people over the past year that have carried an incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works, and that has been encouraged by centralized companies that are attempting to wrest control of bitcoin away from its nodes. There have been four wildly unsuccessful hostile fork attempts (XT/Classic/BU/2x), and two in which alt-coins were forked (BCH/BGLD) from bitcoin in order to attempt to convince people to use their alt-coin instead of bitcoin. All of these attempts have been failures, because all of these attempts have not understood how bitcoin works, and the fact that nodes are the peers in bitcoin, and they police and enforce consensus.

dpkp 9y ago
I guess I just have never found support for that in the nakamoto paper. You obviously have strong feelings about it, and I'm not trying to provoke an argument. I just still don't understand where in the paper there is any discussion of non-mining nodes. The only place I can find mention of nodes that are not working on constructing new blocks on the network is in Section 8 re: the simplified verification protocol.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  Perhaps it should give you pause with that belief structure when you realize the word 'mining' doesn't even exist in the bitcoin whitepaper. It is only the nodes that exist, because it is only the nodes that validate, and everything that didn't have anything to do with validation is rightly considered a secondary concern of the protocol. So there are nodes, which are peers. And there are people who need nodes for performing bitcoin transactions, and some of those people are miners, and some of them are just making good-ol-fashioned transactions. The correct term is "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which create blocks". Or "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which are payments." Download it for yourself and see. https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

riprowan 9y ago

> Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks? Yes, see section 5 of the white paper referenced in OP. It is quite clear what "peer" means in the context of Bitcoin. Others are mistaken here.