5 ms·
If a majority of miners (hash power) decide to mint more, there will be more. The code change is a simple one. The politics and economics are, as always, much m
by schmichael 8y ago
If a majority of miners (hash power) decide to mint more, there will be more. The code change is a simple one. The politics and economics are, as always, much more complex.
- martindale 8y agoIf a majority of full nodes (validators) reject blocks from those miners, their chain will be orphaned and the block reward will fall to the subsidy they've created for themselves (where block_reward = block_subsidy + block_fees). Bitcoin has value because this just isn't possible, in practice.
- schmichael 8y ago> just isn't possible It's absolutely possible. Who runs nodes? There's no way to know that the majority of hash power doesn't already control a majority of nodes.
- martindale 8y agoAs long as you run your own node, it doesn't really matter who runs the rest. If a peer relays an invalid block to you, disconnect from that peer and defer to the chain with the most work. Have you read the paper?
- schmichael 8y agoIf a block is accepted by a majority of nodes and miners it isn't invalid. Your own personal node is free to implement different logic, but it will be unlikely to interact in a functional way with the rest of the network.
- martindale 8y agoThe full node operators are typically holding Bitcoin, and I just don't see anyone willingly accepting a reduction in the value of their assets. Any such block would be viewed as an attack on their sovereignty.
- wp381640 8y agoThere is a way to know since segwit was activated using a user activated soft fork despite not having a majority of miner support Node control has worked in both theory and practice