Nostr Web Client

d0708145... 1y ago

With regards to Saylors recent interview and after a few comment's I've read in relation to it, I have a question. There is talk of a possible future fork of the protocol down the line, in relation to KYC'd Bitcoin and none.

If Blackrock et al gain a sufficient number of BTC, say 25% they may attempt to fork (It's actually written in the small print of their ETF approval that they are permitted to do so).

Now I know that it's up to the node operators to decide which transactions to accept from the miners, I'm not 100% sure how many node operators there are, suggestions vary, as few as 20,000 or as many as 100,000🤷🏻‍♂️. Mining is already extremely centralised with 2 pools having well over 50% of all hash power.

Sorry, I'm rambling here, what's to stop Blackrock/Micro Stratergy running up 10's of thousands of nodes, at relatively low cost, in order to take over the greatest number of nodes who would then decide to process the transactions from the miners, with their particular fork of the software.

Forgive my lack of technical expertise, I'm just curious as to what could/would stop them doing this?

#BTC #Bitcoin #Asknostr.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Zach⚡️ 1y ago

The number of nodes is entirely irrelevant to which side of a fork succeeds

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

it's about which fork continues to be called Bitcoin

that which does not, will not survive

d0708145... 1y ago

As I say, my technical knowledge isn't too broad so, if more than 50% of the nodes (The theoretical Blackrock ones) accept all the transactions from the miners, they don't win the race🤔.

Zach⚡️ 1y ago

The miners compete against each other, the nodes are for redundancy. As long as running a node is relatively accessible and there are enough distributed nodes to prevent denial of service attacks, the amount of nodes is not very important.

Nodes don't vote. They are just independent checkpoints which make sure that blocks are valid and reject invalid blocks.

d0708145... 1y ago

So that's exactly my point. If the powers that be have more than 50% of the nodes they decide which blocks are valid and "Their" version of bitcoin takes precedence, no🤷🏻‍♂️?

Zach⚡️ 1y ago

No. If they change their rules then there becomes two different networks. Nothing changes for the old network, while the new network would start a separate history.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

it's true, it's mainly miners who control the consensus

but they are not all thinking about next month, some of them have big stacks and are not allowing changes that would impact their stack value

they aren't all fiats, i repeat, they aren't all fiats... even if their default time preference as a business is high, they may be lower than that

CitizenPleb 1y ago

When you say KYC’d bitcoin, you’re talking institutionalized custodial coins, correct?

As there’s a difference between that and just theoretically verifiable KYC coins.

d0708145... 1y ago

Hmmm, yes, we'll just stick with institutional ones, for now.

Scrotus 1y ago

the fact that over 94% of the supply has been mined makes a hard fork very difficult. #consensus

Dikaios1517 1y ago

Sheer number of nodes running forked code doesn't matter. What matters is the number of nodes actually being used to facilitate transactions.

For instance, if I have 1000 nodes, but only use one of them for broadcasting transactions, then it doesn't really matter what code my other 999 nodes are running, the only node I am actually using is the one that counts.

Same thing goes for mining. Say those two pools both agree they think the forked code is what they want Bitcoin to be, and so they move ALL their hashrate to the fork. Doesn't mean jack if there aren't enough actual users broadcasting transactions from nodes running that code. It would make blocks come in slower on the non-forked nodes, but that's about it. And I doubt these pools would be so rash as to move all of their hashrate. Rather, they would hedge their bets. And since the miners on each of those pools may not agree with their decision, they may lose a significant amount of hashrate to pools that aren't supporting the fork, unless they provide an option to continue mining on the non-forked chain.

Bottom line is, whoever is behind the fork will have to convince a majority of actual users to run the forked code and consider it to be the real #Bitcoin for their transactions. Additional nodes that don't have real users attached to them are meaningless.

d0708145... 1y ago

Thanks for the info🫡.

El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

Think about circulareconomies, velocity, accessibility, acceptability.

Fork your mother if you want fork

El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

It all doesn't matter as long btc is jugging along. Tick tock. Fiat price is useless if you can't transact in fiat ;)

d0708145... 1y ago

Fuck FIAT.

El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

No. Just let it be, let it be, let it be.

El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

Just listen to Normie's. Everywhere I go they talk about prices too high. Yeah, I know, underclass doesn't matter. But they do. It's trickling up the ladder and won't stop