pull down to refresh

111 sats \ 6 replies \ @SatsAndSports 15h \ parent \ on: What is your understanding of the process to change Bitcoin Core? bitcoin
Miners have no power. And that's a good thing
The market decides which set of consensus rules has the most valuable token, and then the miners flock to it
Miners are sheep, following the money, while the (economic) nodes are the shepherds
It's possible that a lot of stubborn miners will keep their hashrate on the least-valuable chain for a long time. But that's not my problem 😜.
The only exception is in the extremely unlikely event that a large group of miners are able to coordinate themselves to do an extended 51% attack on the chain they don't like. But that won't happen as it requires too much coordination and will be insanely expensive
We, the node runners, must stay vigilant and constantly take actions to ensure miners don't gain any power, as things could change in future
write
preview
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @jakoyoh629 12h
The market decides which set of consensus rules has the most valuable token, and then the miners flock to it
What token? Sounds like shitcoin. Ahhh
reply
132 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 12h
If there'd be a fork then there'd inevitably be a shitcoin. The question then becomes, which one is the shitcoin, anon? Decisions, decisions.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @jakoyoh629 12h
I thought it was just coins on Bitcoin, not tokens.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 12h
I think that the term "coin" doesn't distinguish much versus token, similarities in naming are only a vehicle for association scammers: if something is called a coin, it doesn't mean that it is good or bad, yet that is what scammers will argue.
reply
222 sats \ 1 reply \ @jakoyoh629 11h
concepts are always shifting, but in my book, any token is just a shitcoin, even if it's stamped on Bitcoin.
reply
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
Yes, but what I mean is this: if someone would create a concept in which you'd stamp a coin on the bitcoin blockchain rather than a token, does that make it credible? I'd say no.
There is a weakness in thinking that coin > token instead of saying bitcoin > coin/token. That weakness is that shitcoiners will exploit your narrative because you've generalized, and why, after some years of watching all the abuse, the idea has become "if it isn't bitcoin, then it's a shitcoin". And even then, some will pitch their paper bitcoin, be it FTX, Saylor, BitGo-backed-bridges-to-shitchains or your favorite sidechain/misnomered-L2, as Bitcoin. And people fall for this shit, which is awful.
This is why there is no benefit to weakening this part of the maxi narrative, at all.
reply