Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by npoc 776 days ago
Yes. It's network effect. Even if all of the miners simultaneously decided to go big block or some other controversial change that most people don't want, the majority of the population's nodes would then not accept the mined blocks. They'd see the rate of new blocks drop to 0, and people would instantly start mining on their PCs to get the block reward. Some of the miners would start to change their mind and start mining with ASICs for the easy block-reward and eventually the hash-rate would build back up again, with the previous miners or without them.

The non-mining nodes in fact can completely destroy the ASIC miners by upgrading to a new POW algorithm. Hopefully it will never come to that, but ultimately the people, with their non-mining nodes have the power, not the miners. The only way miners can successfully change bitcoin is if the vast majority of people agree with the change.
1 comments
hggh 776 days ago
Why “non-mining full nodes” are a terrible idea:

https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-a...

link
npoc 774 days ago
The comments to that article (especially the one from dooglus) make a decent rebuttal to the idea that full nodes are a "terrible idea".

If you're convinced a block chain can scale to 50k transactions / sec and also remain decentralised and offer enough privacy, then keep at it, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.

Even if it were theoretically possible, the solution would likely be so complex, or based on a long chain of "hopefully unlikely" events that I wouldn't have enough confidence in it to store large amounts of value.

The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.

link
hggh 773 days ago
There's also a rebuttal to that comment: https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/first-of-all-i-want-to-appl...

> The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.

Then why not just use gold? It is slow, simple, and you can't use it to buy coffee.

link
npoc 773 days ago
Because it's not as liquid, it's not as easily verified, the supply doubles every 40 years, it's not as easily protected (compared to multi-sig bitcoin), I can't send it around the world in 10 minutes, and I can't take it across borders in my head. It doesn't form the basis for the entire world's future reserve asset and monetary unit, and the market is mature/saturated whereas bitcoin is completely misunderstood by almost everyone and so is wildly undervalued.

Bitcoin is demonetising gold.

link
hggh 772 days ago
You are describing Bitcoin Cash too, with the difference that with BCH in that 10-minute window the transaction is irreversible (like the original Bitcoin), so a 0-conf tx. And extremely low fees, of course (also like the original Bitcoin).
link
npoc 772 days ago
back to the start we go :-)

Bitcoin transactions are also "irreversible" providing the fee paid is reasonable, but ultimately the clearing time for both networks is down to the likelihood of a 51% attack for which bitcoin is far more protected against due to the far larger amount of hash power. It's not comparable.

If I'm moving/storing $1 billion, do I care if the transaction costs $1 instead of $20? No - I care that I'm storing the money in the safest place to store value I can find.

link