3 ms·

Wrong. NODEs (individual network participants) enforce the rules, not miners.

by sunsu 5y ago

incrudible 5y ago
Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Its the other way round -- nothing forces nodes to accept bad blocks from miners. An honest node would simply ignore the bad data. The exchanges run nodes, so I would rather be generating or receiving transactions on a chain (or fork) that its users are engaging with. Nodes accept blocks from miners, miners don't accept blocks from nodes.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Where do those honest blocks come from, if not from honest miners? Where do honest miners come from?
  - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
    Nodes still work on consensus, and given that they have no incentivization to exist, they have been dropping in number over years.
  - WanderPanda 5y ago
    Isn’t there an incentive to run a node for privacy? With your own node you are not leaking your xpub and you don’t leak your transactions by staring at them on a block explorer
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Wouldn't your own node unless properly hidden be higher chance of leaking your transactions? As I would expect them to come from your own node... Ofc, tracking the ones made from other services sure it is safer.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    Aren’t both things true? Miners can’t force nodes to accept blocks as being valid, nodes can’t force miners to include transactions in their blocks. These statements are not in conflict.
    - ric2b 5y ago
      The difference being that anyone can mine, so even if 99% of miners are censoring a transaction, it will still likely be confirmed in a block.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jasode 5y ago
  >Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule. I deleted a previous reply to you because I think I may have misunderstood what you wrote. In any case, are you saying the majority of miners have the ultimate control of the protocol rules of the cryptocurrency?
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) majority is an extremely important part of it.
    - jasode 5y ago
      >Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) majority is an extremely important part of it. In 2017, the majority of miner hashpower wanted to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase 1MB blocksize to 2MB but the SegWit2x failed to be adopted. What's your interpretation of that event?
      - incrudible 5y ago
        They signaled support for it, but when push came to shove, they bailed. I'm not saying 51% of miners decide what the rules are. Suppose you had a Bitcoin fork that had 80% of the hashrate. How long would that situation need to persist until the major network participants decide to call that fork "Bitcoin"?

Wrong. NODEs (individual network participants) enforce the rules, not miners.

by sunsu 5y ago

Wrong. NODEs (individual network participants) enforce the rules, not miners.

incrudible 5y ago

Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
Its the other way round -- nothing forces nodes to accept bad blocks from miners. An honest node would simply ignore the bad data. The exchanges run nodes, so I would rather be generating or receiving transactions on a chain (or fork) that its users are engaging with. Nodes accept blocks from miners, miners don't accept blocks from nodes.
- incrudible 5y ago
  Where do those honest blocks come from, if not from honest miners? Where do honest miners come from?
- minsc__and__boo 5y ago
  Nodes still work on consensus, and given that they have no incentivization to exist, they have been dropping in number over years.
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  Isn’t there an incentive to run a node for privacy? With your own node you are not leaking your xpub and you don’t leak your transactions by staring at them on a block explorer
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Wouldn't your own node unless properly hidden be higher chance of leaking your transactions? As I would expect them to come from your own node... Ofc, tracking the ones made from other services sure it is safer.
- drdeca 5y ago
  Aren’t both things true? Miners can’t force nodes to accept blocks as being valid, nodes can’t force miners to include transactions in their blocks. These statements are not in conflict.
  - ric2b 5y ago
    The difference being that anyone can mine, so even if 99% of miners are censoring a transaction, it will still likely be confirmed in a block.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jasode 5y ago
>Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule. I deleted a previous reply to you because I think I may have misunderstood what you wrote. In any case, are you saying the majority of miners have the ultimate control of the protocol rules of the cryptocurrency?
- incrudible 5y ago
  Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) majority is an extremely important part of it.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) majority is an extremely important part of it. In 2017, the majority of miner hashpower wanted to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase 1MB blocksize to 2MB but the SegWit2x failed to be adopted. What's your interpretation of that event?
    - incrudible 5y ago
      They signaled support for it, but when push came to shove, they bailed. I'm not saying 51% of miners decide what the rules are. Suppose you had a Bitcoin fork that had 80% of the hashrate. How long would that situation need to persist until the major network participants decide to call that fork "Bitcoin"?