pull down to refresh
200 sats \ 3 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 13h \ parent \ on: Does a UASF require a majority of nodes to be aproved? bitcoin_beginners
Interesting perspective, my fear is exactly that, that it becomes a demo(niac)cracy. And in practice my concern are those umbrel and start9 nodes without the freedom to chose which version of core or knots to use. And the motivation of those people running those nodes, as in my imagination there's the risk of them being manipulated into some direction toghether with blackrock saylor and etc, just like the crowds in a democracy.
I think you're right that anyone that uses a third party to select what software they run is a weaker link than those that make well-informed choices, and therefore they:
- don't necessarily understand the software they run, and thus
- haven't made choices needed to operate a node properly, and thus
- can relatively easily be tricked into running software that isn't in their best interest (though arguably, you can get gaslit on twitter all the same and still make choices against your own interest.)
This is arguably the hardest part of Bitcoin when facing a blocking minority holding out or, worse, majority misinformation. But, so far it's been pretty good and crises have not really disrupted that much, yet.
reply
to be devils advocate, as of right now, alot of the out of the box node stacks DO allow you to dictate CORE/KNOTS.
doesnt take away from your very valid point regarding centralizing factors when it comes to node software
reply
Indeed, I always used raspibolt, minibolt guides and similar stuff. Last month I tried umbrel and was surprised how it does not let me choose what version of core/knots to use. Or maybe I did not find, anyway I feel much more confortable isntalling debian and doing the rest manually with much more freedom.
reply