I was talking about *consensus rules*: the set of rules about what is and is not allowed into transactions that are mined. We call that "consensus" because we cannot disagree about it (because Bitcoin can have only one history, to prevent double spending).

Not talking about consensus amongst people generally.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I get what you mean, but what's really happening is that in reality yes we can disagree on it.

I think you know exactly what I mean. We can and a lot of people are disagreeing on it with the power of Bitcoin Node as votes, the Satoshi architecture devised for vetoing/filtering mining consensus.

This is the only tool the plebs culturally have to affect that "consensus".

And the plebs are voicing their opinions saying they want to keep Bitcoin as monetary only as possible.

I fully agree with that sentiment. It's a fundamental position to have. Bitcoin is money and should be treated as money only. There's a community behind Bitcoin, there's an ethos behind it. It's not just technology. It's people with balls and ideals that they're willing to die for. That's what Bitcoin really is. That technical "consensus" is an illusion.

Nodes exist and people are waking up to their power. It was inevitable. Bitcoin is the people and it should always be the people.