pull down to refresh
19 replies \ @Scoresby OP 20 Mar \ on: POLL: Bitcoin needs low transaction fees or low cost to run a node? bitcoin
I'm surprised by the results of this poll (90% low cost to run a node at the moment).
Results from my previous poll on how much it costs to run a node indicated that the cost was minimal.
Sending a single transaction probably costs more than running a bitcoin node for a year.
If you don't have a utxo you have NO say in bitcoin consensus rules.
If you don't have a utxo you have NO say in bitcoin consensus rules.
Fixed: If you don’t run a node as an economic participant you have NO say in consensus
reply
It's because you wrote it as an either-or question. In a vacuum, fees are less important than cost of running a node. Today, it would be nice to prioritize fees more, thanks to the relative low cost of node running we've reached.
reply
Good point. But all the qualifications make it harder to get answers.
reply
If you don't have a utxo you have NO say in bitcoin consensus rules.
This is not true. If you need a UTXO to have a say in Bitcoin consensus rules then Bitcoin is Proof of Stake which it is not. Running a node is having a say/vote in consensus rules because it matters what software you run. When the majority run the same consensus rules as you, you are within consensus. You can vote by running different rules ie (42 million bitcoin) but if the majority of node runners and miners don't join you then you are not running Bitcoin. A UTXO is not required to have a vote.
reply
If there is a hard fork, you exert pressure by dumping the fork you disagree with and holding the fork you think is good.
I agree with you that bitcoin isn't proof of stake, but I also think running a node on its own isn't too much more than symbolism.
When you use the node to say "this is what I think is bitcoin and if you send me something else, I won't accept it" then you are enforcing consensus rules.
How does simply running the software influence on consensus?
reply
You only exert pressure on the price which is pretty much irrelevant to Bitcoin consensus. Bitcoin had consensus before a price existed for bitcoin. Many shitcoin forks have had higher gains and price than bitcoin but consensus didn't move.
The software you run signals consensus as it signals what the users want and what they use. This is relevant to soft forks as well. For example, if no one upgraded to use Taproot addresses and functionality after the soft fork then consensus shows that that the soft fork was irrelevant and signals the devs to find better solutions.
Miners showed majority support for increasing the raw block size but it was the node runners who said no and maintained consensus. Node runners have much bigger signal and influence than you give credit for.
reply
Good point about soft fork signaling.
I'm not sure I agree about the price thing. What people are willing to accept as bitcoin is a pretty strong signal in the event of a hard fork.
What people who are not transacting with btc are running seems like a much weaker signal.
I run a node and do so because I think it's good for Bitcoin to have node runners (I even make posters about it). But I have been trending more and more towards trying to make myself an economic actor in Bitcoin, because I think that is even better for Bitcoin.
reply
Cool! I love the poster! Well done! :)
Regarding the price, the majority of people who own Bitcoin do not run a node. However in order to transact, they are sending Bitcoin via a node running Bitcoin's consensus rules. Are you saying economic actors have more control than node runners even though Bitcoin software itself has no concept of fiat, marketcaps, and exchange rates?
Thought experiment: If the US government prints ungodly amounts of fiat and throws it into Bitcoin Cash or another fork does that then become Bitcoin? If so, whats the point of running Bitcoin?
reply
First point: I think whoever is running the node for them is going to wield a lot of influence on their behalf--unless they pay attention and demand a say in what consensus rules the node runs. But then, I would wonder why they don't just run a node for themselves.
Thought experiment: at this juncture (March, 2024) I don't think anyone would care and it would remain bch. If it had happened in August 2017, I think it is possible that that fork could have "won" and be called Bitcoin. (It would still be a bad idea and a shitty fork).
In the case of a future contentious fork, government interference via money printing is a real possibility and I think it would sway most of the market.
reply
A UTXO doesn't reside on a specific node. You may be referring to customers using exchanges, however exchanges don't care what holders on their platform think. They only exist to profit from trades. They don't profit more if you hold one fork or the other (unless its POS). They may still have their own opinion but it doesn't matter any more than any other node. For example, Coinbase sided with big blockers and had the most economic resources behind them. Their node had no extra influence than my node did.
Bitcoin is not here for fiat gains. It does not care who holds more and neither do we. It is here to replace fiat. The side effect of success just happens to be that its worth more fiat. We are opting out of their corrupt trash and ultimately care not where their fiat garbage goes. If fiat is end game, then Bitcoin was dead before it even began.
reply
I was referring to people who leave their bitcoin on exchanges.
I'm not really interested in fiat value either.
I'm trying to make the case that it is not solely the act if software running on your computer that enforces bitcoin's rules.
I think in addition to running software, transacting with bitcoin enforces the rules.
It's likely that I'm not being clear. Sorry for that.