4 ms·

You got it completely backwards: in Bitcoin the only thing that matters is the computing power of miners, not the number of nodes. That is precisely the problem

You got it completely backwards: in Bitcoin the only thing that matters is the computing power of miners, not the number of nodes. That is precisely the problem that Satoshi Nakamoto intended to solve, preventing Sybil attacks [0]. In few words, you don't want the consensus of the network to change just because you spawn more nodes voting the way you want to, they need to expend a resource that cannot be duplicated, in Bitcoin's case computing power/electricity. The Bitcoin Whitepaper also explains this in Section 4, "Proof of Work" [4]: > The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack [1] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/#proof-of-work https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/#proof-of-work Edit: changed typo, "and the number of nodes" should have been "not the number of nodes".

mattwilsonn888 4y ago
> Bitcoin the only thing that matters is the computing power of miners > That is precisely the problem that Satoshi Nakamoto intended to solve, preventing Sybil attacks "The problem" Satoshi wanted to solve is building a trustless ledger that can store real value, even if the only value is the ability to publish data uncensored and universally. Sybil attacks are an aspect of that and proof of work had already existed before Bitcoin to solve, you guessed it, Sybil attacks. You're view of Satoshi's intentions are therefore myopic. This is demonstrated when you conflate your quoted passage about chain reorganization with power over the network as a whole. Satoshi was sensitive to block size, so were and are all Bitcoiners. There is a reason the block size was not massive out of the gate, and in the main forks remains small: Satoshi understood that node participation was important and should not be gatekept. In a way, that's all irrelevant. We do not need the authority of the founder to draw our own conclusions about Bitcoin or blockchain - in fact one intention of Satoshi which is plainly obvious is this fact. Volunteer nodes absolutely contribute to decentralization of resources and power. Mining nodes have an interest in maximizing profits, while volunteer nodes have an interest in keeping the network tied to its ideology, which means not significantly changing, which is valuable for a store of value. It certainly is not a scalable model (neither is Ethereum, it just makes other trade offs), but the nodes do in fact keep check on each other.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago

> Bitcoin the only thing that matters is the computing power of miners > That is precisely the problem that Satoshi Nakamoto intended to solve, preventing Sybil attacks "The problem" Satoshi wanted to solve is building a trustless ledger that can store real value, even if the only value is the ability to publish data uncensored and universally. Sybil attacks are an aspect of that and proof of work had already existed before Bitcoin to solve, you guessed it, Sybil attacks. You're view of Satoshi's intentions are therefore myopic. This is demonstrated when you conflate your quoted passage about chain reorganization with power over the network as a whole. Satoshi was sensitive to block size, so were and are all Bitcoiners. There is a reason the block size was not massive out of the gate, and in the main forks remains small: Satoshi understood that node participation was important and should not be gatekept. In a way, that's all irrelevant. We do not need the authority of the founder to draw our own conclusions about Bitcoin or blockchain - in fact one intention of Satoshi which is plainly obvious is this fact. Volunteer nodes absolutely contribute to decentralization of resources and power. Mining nodes have an interest in maximizing profits, while volunteer nodes have an interest in keeping the network tied to its ideology, which means not significantly changing, which is valuable for a store of value. It certainly is not a scalable model (neither is Ethereum, it just makes other trade offs), but the nodes do in fact keep check on each other.