Topic: Bitcoin's blockchain size (Read 582 times)

Would you live in a climate where miner wields a greater power than the actual users and having it their way? I wouldn't. Majority of the miners did not want to adopt Segwit and  were proposing a block size increase. Miners started to signal for Segwit after it became apparent there was a threat for a UASF in the upcoming days. Bitcoin is better than Bitcoin Cash because the economic majority (ie. the users) favors it, which is why miners prefer to mine on Bitcoin rather than Bitcoin Cash.

There are plans for LOT=True, or at least as a contingency if miners want to veto Taproot.

Miners are primarily dependent on the crypto's users. If no one wants to use Bitcoin, then there is no point for them to continue mining Bitcoins. In effect, the users have an influence over the decisions the miners make as well.

These consensus changes are taken democratically, aren't they? No one enforces us to do anything, but if most of us believe that we should upgrade to SegWit/Taproot, we do. There's even a website which used to show how many have voted for the taproot activation.

Bitcoin may not be a democratic system, surely not an authoritarian one, but the people of its ecosystem seem to behave democratically.

They don't have all the power, but they're responsible for the security of the network. They don't just choose the order of the transactions. Take for example the voting for the taproot activation. If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered.

The Bitcoin Cash “team” didn't want to adopt SegWit as far as I know. Who cares about Bitcoin Cash! Bitcoin is securer than that and thus, it's been seen as the official, beloved and securest cryptocurrency among all.

The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion.

I agree that it helps the network. I don't agree that it helps it significantly.

See @DannyHamilton reply, except pruned-node only share last few thousand block. Additionally more ways to run full node (even if it's pruned node) is better than nothing.


True, i never say it's ideal or good option.

Running a full node, it is personally beneficial to me, because I have the ability to validate all my transactions without relying on trusted third-parties. Running an archival node, it would be beneficial to the network to provide the full copy of the blockchain for the process of new nodes’ Initial Block Download. The blockchain must be as redundant as much as possible. Do you agree?

It’s your personal choice, if you don’t want to run a full node, OK. If you want to run a full node, OK. But the ability to run one shouldn’t be taken away.


Then the more copies of it in the network, the better. It’s always better to overshoot the network’s robustness and security than undershoot it.

By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.

There is simply no point about trying to mine. You are only a significant proportion of the miner if you (and those who are in line with your views) are able to mine a block. Even so, being able to mine blocks doesn't entitle you to the rights to amend the rules of the network or otherwise influence it. Full nodes are enforcers of the rules, if you don't want to comply with the economic majority, then you risk mining on the chain that no one follows. The consensus that really matter comes from the economic majority. Miner's signalling only shows that they are compliant with the proposed rules.

If miners really form the bulk of the consensus, then how did we manage to settle the segwit deadlock? There are contingencies for forced activation of rules as well, so I'm not sure how miners really hold that much power if the economic majority are the ones transacting in Bitcoin, not them.

I disagree, but as you've pointed out, that's a matter of opinion.


I'm not sure that I agree that it's "better", but I did offer that as one of the ways to participate. See here:


Democracy requires more than dialogue.  Regardless, Bitcoin is not a democratic system, it is a consensus system.

You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system.  The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block.  They do not enforce the consensus.  The nodes do.  If a miner creates a block that fails to honor the consensus rules, every node in the entire world will reject it regardless of the amount of hash power that miner has.  The miners do not have the ability to implement any change that would violate the current consensus rules unless they have the support of the nodes.

When you run a node, you're following the voters. If you don't decide to mine, but run a node instead, you have no “opinion” in the consensus, because you have no power on the system. The system is empowered only from those who mine, who provide the security.

By running a Bitcoin node, you vote what other voters do.

Okay, I just wouldn't choose to account it that way. Mining could be compared with elections garnished with some incentive on top of them, but running your own node seems more as a personal benefit to me.

In my opinion, running a full node without securing the network is a very expensive choice with the least benefit. It'd be better to simply discuss with other people in this forum; that'd be more beneficial to everyone.

Dialogue is democracy.