Subnostr

boston wine 2y ago

Bitcoiners, help me reason through this please?

For a “BlackRock fork” to mean anything, it would have no relationship to how much Bitcoin they own.

They would need to run a majority of the network’s nodes to then force a consensus about the new correct chain.

And I have a hard time imagining that they’ll spin up hundreds of thousands of nodes faster than individual actual bitcoiners will in the coming years…

Am I missing something here? nostr:note1s9gljgza6uyzcgq63u49lsfmau3d6jznyg3428m3fya0mfz8j9asnekkxj

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I understood it that way, that because they would have an enormous amount of bitcoin and thus value, their decision would influence all others decision. Because most participants would use the fork that promises more „value“ for them and not necessarily what is best for the network.

boston wine 2y ago

I’m genuinely not sure about this.

Bitcoin/incentives should be such that whales can temporarily impact price by buying or selling in large volumes… so do you mean that if someone with a huge amount of Bitcoin tries to push a fork and then sells all of their “pre fork” coins, it would suppress the price enough that others would sell and jump onto the new fork?

With less than 2 million coins left to mine, and millions of those coins in the hands of die hard HODLers, I don’t know that any newcomer to the market would be able to achieve the above.

No, that’s not what i meant. Let’s say there is a fork. Btc1 (as we know it) and btc2, which is more government friendly. Maybe because it introduces kyc control for every bitcoin wallet or something…

Now if BlackRock holds a huge percentage of the supply and they say „we see btc2“ as the real Bitcoin, they will just declare all the Bitcoin of their customers as btc2. And because they have so muchbof it, they can manipulate prices in a way that this btc2 rises in price against btc1. Which will lead to more ppl wanting this btc2.

That’s how i understood it. But i am just a random noob 😅

boston wine 2y ago

To me that sounds like they just fork yet another altcoin. There is demand for altcoins, usually by newcomers to “crypto” or by insiders getting ready for a pump and dump… how is the situation above different from BSV?

BSV can not declare the holdings of millions of ppl as BSV.

BSV has not the financial means to pump up the marketcap of BSV above the marketcap of BTC.

But i don’t know if i understand this correctly

boston wine 2y ago

Ah, but the holdings you reference are BlackRock’s - the millions of people hold nothing but IOUs.

And market cap doesn’t define Bitcoin; a larger market cap might attract more investment but that’s just another different digital asset that people may choose to pour money into.

Doesn’t change Bitcoin

Calming thoughts 😌

boston wine 2y ago

💯

Just found this video about it:

https://youtu.be/KloXHKxmoiA

Tommy Stacker 2y ago

It doesn't matter how much Bitcoin they own or how many nodes they spin up ...it's how many miners you have to control the network and they would need more than half a million ...even if they did that we bitcoiners would ignore their fork and carry on with the current chain 😁🚀💯

boston wine 2y ago

“bitcoiners would ignore their fork and carry on with the current chain”

This is what I mean though. Bitcoiners would continue running nodes that accept only real Bitcoin blocks, and reject blocks built by miners that are “blackrock blocks”.

Point of blocksize wars was that nodes have more control, no?

Miners can be captured by state actors, corporations, whatever, but it’s up to the noderunners to accept the blocks that get mined. That’s my understanding at least, but trying to fill in any gaps 🙏

Tommy Stacker 2y ago

Yes this makes sense ...blocksize wars is my next book 👍💯

💯

corndalorian 2y ago

Your last point nails it. It doesn’t even matter how much hash rate they have since miners don’t control the network. Miners produce blocks of transactions. The rest of the network still has to accept, validate, and propagate those blocks, and if miners start producing blocks that are invalid on other bitcoiners’ nodes then they’re wasting real resources mining on a new chain with no proven lasting economic value.

𝖋𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖎𝖊𝖗 (¯`◕‿◕´¯) 2y ago

In before Blackrock #bitcoin $BLB is the TRUE bitcoin 😆

corndalorian 2y ago

🤢😂

boston wine 2y ago

😂💯

boston wine 2y ago

That’s what I thought! Thank you for the eloquent articulation of it.

Guess we can just add “🖕⚫️🪨” to the “🖕🍎” mantra 😉

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM&feature=share9

boston wine 2y ago

This is an excellent clip. And it’s aged beautifully 😂

The idea (and preposterousness) of a 51% attack by miners makes perfect sense. But what I’m wondering is whether a majority of nodes would meaningfully change the consensus around block acceptance. But I think it wouldn’t happen, considering that no bitcoiner is ever going to run BlackRockFork on their own node.

Satoshi answers this question in the white paper I think I uploaded the wrong section on nodes lol

boston wine 2y ago

But the whitepaper mostly refers to nodes and miners interchangeably, no?

It also talks about if nodes are not honest

boston wine 2y ago

Yes… I think I’m missing what you’re getting at wrt the BlackRock fork FUD though

He speaks of nodes be honest and dishonest and blockrock node probably will be dishonest.. I could be off topic or talking about something different thinking it's the same.. lol we learning

boston wine 2y ago

My understanding of an honest node is one who accepts and publishes valid blocks.

A node that accepts a forked block is just running a different blockchain sooner or later. If all other nodes accept that block/chain too, then that becomes the consensus chain and the “valid” coin, at least to those nodes.

One of the beautiful things about Bitcoin is that your node defines your coins, your software, etc.

No reason to accept a black rock fork unless you would prefer to hold that asset instead of Bitcoin

🙌🏾this was what I was trying to explain. I just didn't know how to word it lol

boston wine 2y ago

🤙🫂🫡

It don't matter because I will not buy fedcoin

It's the world's largest asset management cooperation, they're not producing anything. They won't fork and they won't mine, the most sinister thing they might do is to offer mere price exposure/paper BTC to their customers.

I thought that same when read that🤔

CitizenPleb 2y ago

They don’t wanna get stuck holding BSV 2.0 😂

boston wine 2y ago

😂💯💯

No, you’re not missing anything.

boston wine 2y ago

🤙🫡

Could AI impersonate nodes?

boston wine 2y ago

Don’t think so. You could automate the creation and setup of nodes but pretty sure that also requires a unique device per node. So it’s industrial automation as well, if that’s right.

Interesting 🤔

boston wine 2y ago

And even in that case… bitcoiner nodes are gonna run Bitcoin. Companies and state actors can do whatever they want, but that doesn’t make their software Bitcoin

I’m happy to be a node runner then 🤙🏼💜

やトナ 2y ago

People are reading way too much into this clause. It means nothing. It’s a protective clause in the event a fork happens and they need to continue operating the ETF without being subjected to any sort of liability. They aren’t going to make their own fork, that would open a whole new set of potential liability for them that they don’t want to deal with. The clause is a nothingburger.

boston wine 2y ago

This take is solid af

やトナ 2y ago

Thank you, I think it’s just realistic 🤷‍♂️. Here is how i imagine their thought process:

My guess is they’ve done their homework, learned of the block size wars, and thought “if this happens again, where someone claims a random fork is the ‘real’ bitcoin, these people may try to sue us saying we are making false representations with our BTC ETF because it isn’t the real bitcoin, according to them. So we should shield ourselves from that and say, if something like this happens again, we are going to have final say over which one is real for purposes of the ETF, so that they cannot claim we are misrepresenting anything.”

And my guess is they would continue supporting the strongest and most valuable one (the only real one) - BTC.

Side note: if Blackrock made their own fork it’d probably be a security.

boston wine 2y ago

All great points my friend. Covering their own downside is definitely the most realistic interpretation