0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Scoresby OP 20 Mar \ parent \ on: POLL: Bitcoin needs low transaction fees or low cost to run a node? bitcoin
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.
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.
reply
No worries, you're good. This is a great conversation.
Can you give an explanation of how transacting enforces the rules?
reply
What do you use a node for?
It's not just to keep an updated copy of the blockchain. At least for me, I run a node so I can be sure bitcoin I receive is actually bitcoin. And so I don't have to trust someone else to broadcast my transactions.
This is what I mean by enforcing consensus rules with transactions.
If I just run a node, but do not transact, the network doesn't care. But if I say "this thing you sent me, I know it is bitcoin because I have software running on my computer that doesn't need to trust anyone, that can prove it by itself" --well, now I have enforced the consensus rules.
If someone sent me money that violated the rules, I could say "what the hell is this? This isn't money! Pay me something else or no deal."
If all I do is run a node, but don't receive bitcoin, then I can yell and scream about people changing the rules, but nobody has to listen.
With transactions someone actually has to listen. This is why I think economic nodes enforce consensus rules.
What do you think?
reply
Ok, I get what you are saying now. Thank you for that explanation.
Yes that makes sense. I think you are correct that economic nodes are much more important to users than non-economic nodes. However, I'm not sure it matters in terms of voting.
Here you can see how many nodes are running which version of Bitcoin's software, but I don't know how you could tell which ones are utilizing it for transaction verification and which ones aren't.
How would one then verify which node's vote is weighted higher than others and by how much? I think over the long term, you are correct because economic nodes will outlast non-economic nodes as there is no real benefit to pay to run a node if you aren't using it to verify your own transactions.
This is definitely an interesting idea that I will be thinking more about. Thanks!
reply
It is an interesting topic. And thanks for the thoughtful questions it's forcing me to articulate some things, which is always good.
I don't really think Luke Jr's count of nodes is relevant to what happens in the event of a contested hard fork.
Say a large movement got going to double the supply of bitcoin to 42 million (it's the answer to life, the universe and everything isn't it?).
I wouldn't accept it.
But I can only know what I'm accepting if I'm running a node. So that's why running a node is important.
If I don't accept bitcoin anyway and I'm just running the node out of solidarity, what can I do? Show up as a number on Luke's graph?
How many nodes are running a certain set of rules is an interesting signal, but do you think it is one that will alter outcomes?
There is no voting and no weighting, there is only people who are willing to accept bitcoin. If a person is not transacting with bitcoin, running a node doesn't have much to do with the matter.
I think what I'm trying to get at with this poll is that noderunners aren't who enforce bitcoin's consensus rules. The rules are enforced by node runners who accept bitcoin transactions.
reply
Thank you for your clarifications. I think we are mostly on the same page. In fact I agree with just about everything you wrote here! The only caveat is that I think non transacting nodes still have voting power. To what degree is uncertain.
You could be HODLing a block reward for decades without making a transaction. However you would likely run a node and vote through the software you decide to run and seemingly just be another number in the graph. I suppose you could argue that the block reward is technically a transaction. Is HODLing technically transacting? How many transactions are necessary to enforce the consensus? 1? more? Can someone support and enforce Bitcoin without actually using it via a transaction? Could a person living with generational wealth like the idea and run a node just to support what Bitcoin represents for the world without actually accepting Bitcoin since they have no personal economic need for it?
I don't think transacting is necessary to have a say or enforce the rules. I agree that the raw numbers don't necessarily determine consensus but they are a useful metric and could signal general consensus. Consensus is not black and white nor easily measurable. Its very perplexing and fascinating.
Thank you for your insights. Definitely some interesting threads to investigate here. The rabbit hole just keeps going and I love it =)
reply
That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read.
reply