I mean at 1 sat / v byte they can send transactions for 15 cents (price fluctuates but prices keep trending down historically and I’ve sent at this cost recently). So they could keep this up for a while.
I don’t understand this part of Bitcoin very well - the argument against spinning up and using nodes. My counter point was as much a question as a statement. Would like to learn more and was hoping you could explain why this wouldn’t work
Why do you think this would accomplish anything?
I don’t know. Maybe it wouldn’t. The argument was that nodes have to validate transactions to be relevant. So I said, ‘why cant they send transactions to themselves? It doenst cost much. Then they dominate the network and champion of a fork.’ I don’t know enough to know if this works. It is a question.
You need to be producing/trading something of value in exchange for bitcoin in order for your act of transaction verification to have an impact on the network. If the bitcoin you receive does not comply with your version of the protocol then verification fails and you stop providing economic value to whoever sent you the "bitcoin". The rolling set of people doing this determine what the protocol is.
The humans who are doing the _most work_ by far in the bitcoin system are those that are mining blocks. They mine by to convert electricity, work and ingenuity into bitcoin. Miners get bitcoin from the Coinbase reward and from fees that users submit when transacting.
Spinning up, nodes without mining won't control the network.
This is true, but the nuance is that miners provide immutability as a service and don't actually have any power over the protocol.
The miners will mine chain that _the market_ values most. They will follow the value. The nodes pick/arive-at the protocol to run that maximizes the value.
In this way yes, miners dont have power over the protocol
Not sure if you've seen this one but think you'll like it: https://youtu.be/X_xgmVLyB94
This is excellent.
My two SATS:
1.) the individuals who are accepting bitcoin for something have performed real work, in the real world. They are then trusting that they can store this work for future use by exchanging it for BTC today. Work is always the base of the system: whether by miners or by buyers of BTC.
2.) Hoarders (HODLers) are using bitcoin and add significant value to the network. I'm storing my work, talent, ingenuity for future use: will exchange for something I need or pass it on to my tribe. Refusing to take fiat or inferior/low quality stuff for my coins is a forcing function: other humans must work harder/better, produce good stuff and/or bid up the fiat price. At the margins this is why NGU.
This is my go to source for solid takes:
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/
I like it
Also miners could collectively be _barely_ bitcoiners. They are just converting electricity to value, they could sell BTC immediately for fiat; and may not know anything about sound money or how the proof of work works or why.
Crazy to think about the security of the system could be resting on unprincipled bitcoiners or even no-coiners 🤣
