Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise - page 3. (Read 11821 times)

The question to me is: What exactly  is an  'invalid block'.  The final protocol could be very flexible here. Major rules should be: 21 Mio fix, no double spending,... ??

I'm going to reply in pieces to this


If there is only one centralized entity that makes the single software ran by miners and nodes alike, this is the central authority that decides by writing lines of code and pushing it to the miners (and also the verifying nodes which do the same).  So, duh.  That's why a system that has only one code base is centralized in the hands of the coders.  First Satoshi, of course, and later, Core.  That's no different from Microsoft being the central authority of what windows does, or Apple being the central authority of what Apple devices do.  

The only choice left to the software user is: keep old version, or upgrade.

If everything is done by soft forks, moreover, the only thing that the software monopolist needs to do, is to convince >50% of the mining nodes to adopt the software.  Then this soft fork is imposed upon the rest of the miners (or all their blocks get orphaned sooner or later).  And the users, we don't care.  Because soft forks are accepted by older nodes (even if they don't understand them).

==> soft forks are the way for the software monopolist to keep its power if it can push its upgrades to more than half of the miner pools.

This is why this has been "working" since 2010.  Bitcoin was centralized on a software monopolist which was smart enough to use soft forks.



You (and you're not alone) seems to have serious conceptual difficulties with the notion of a decentralized system.   A decentralized system has no authority, has no laws, has no government, has no justice, has, in other words, no notion of "morality", of "good" and "bad", of "valid" and "invalid".

Yes, if we were living in a decentralized society, "murder" would not have any notion of good or bad.  Like in nature, when the lion murders the antelope.  It happens or it doesn't happen.  Visibly, for the lion, killing the antelope was "good" ; for the antelope, we imagine that it was "bad", and nature being decentralized, there's no single authority to put the "bad" of the antelope over the "good" of the lion, and decide that it was globally bad.

This total absence of authority, of good and bad, and of valid and invalid, makes that the system has a dynamical behaviour.

You could say the same, in more restricted terms, of "market price".  The price, in a market, is also something that is decentralized if it is an efficient and competitive market.  There is no "valid" and "invalid" price.  There is no "good" and "bad" price.  The price is whatever the market determines, it is.

In the same way, in a decentralized system, whatever happens on the system, is what the system is doing, and that is not "good" or "bad". It can correspond, or deviate, from the PURPOSE you had IN MIND that the system WAS MADE FOR, but that's just illusion.  The system is whatever it is doing.  A "51% attack" is part of its possible behaviours, like "murder" is part of the possible behaviours of a system made of lions and antelopes.

From the moment you would like to define "good" and "bad" in such a system, you need to introduce centralization, because a single authority needs to even define what are the boundaries of "good" and "bad", and needs to have privileged force to impose this upon all its participants.   You need, in other words, a government that makes rules, judges that verify the respect of the rules, and a police and prison to punish with force, those that want to transgress the rules.

If you say "majority vote", well, a 51% attack was a majority vote !  So clearly, if you want to define the evilness of an act you will need to chose between two possibilities:

1) there is a *dynamical* way to define good and bad, and whatever that dynamical way does, is what is good and bad (= decentralized system)
2) there is an undisputed central authority that is recognized by all to say what is good and bad (the King = centralized system) and who can enforce it.

I'm just explaining that in a true decentralized system, only what emerges dynamically as "good" and "bad", IS what is good and bad.

In bitcoin (and most crypto) that's the block chain.  The block chain is what is good/true/valid.  All the rest is bad/false/invalid.   Simply because that's the fundamental assumption to be able to make a decentralized ledger.  It's in there -> valid ; it's not in there -> not valid ; the rules that make the ledger are per definition valid, and whatever other rules that are not compatible with the actual sole ledger out there are dynamically determined to be false, EVEN if they told you that they should have been valid.

The OTHER way of doing things, is: the King.  Here, the software monopolist, that tells you to use their software (because nobody else ever made anything else, or because everyone ACCEPTS the ultimate authority of the King).  The software, being in only one version, is then what determines what is good and what is bad, what is valid and what is invalid.



It IS the only power in bitcoin, and this thinking is the fundamental basis of anarchist society.  Personally, I'm in favour of it, but I measure its full implication of "immorality" (which is why I'm in favour of it, actually).  But I think most people declaring themselves anarchist don't measure this to their full extend.  It is a society without good or bad.  But my political opinion doesn't matter.  

What matters is that bitcoin is designed to be decentralized, so, without any central form of authority, and hence IS an anarchist system, if ever the code monopolist loses its monopoly.   And then this is a natural and logical consequence.  Whether that is desired, healthy, "good", "valid" or anything else with moral judgement, doesn't matter, and that's exactly the whole point of decentralization: no morality, but dynamics !

You could just as well say: "if gravity is keeping the moon on orbit that's OK, but if it makes me also fall off the mountain, I don't know if that is desirable".  Well, it is part of the *dynamical laws* because gravity too, has no "morality" or no "validity".  Whatever it does, is what gravity does.


Well, the genius of bitcoin's designer was to build a system in which the rules he laid down (as King) became or were supposed to become a Nash equilibrium, which means, that deviating from it for a single entity was not in that entity's advantage, meaning that the rules were immutable.  But it seems that Satoshi didn't understand the genius of his own design, so he still was thinking in terms of the King.

Bitcoin was laid down by its  King and his heirs, Core, as long as they are/were the software monopolist.  They are the central deciders on bitcoin.  They could even decide, like Vitalik did on ethereum, to reverse some irreversible things.  As such, bitcoin is like windows: a central software monopolist decides on everything.    They also decide, through their software, what is valid and invalid, good and bad, right and wrong.  Nobody can oppose them, because they make the only software that can run bitcoin.  There's no difference between core on one hand, and windows and apple on the other.  There are, indeed, rules of validity and of invalidity.

However, once that monopoly is gone in practice, who's going to decide what version of software is going to define what is valid and invalid ?   What is now "valid" ?  Where does that notion even come from ?

Bitcoin was designed to decide this by majority vote, majority of hash rate.  So yes, the original design exactly decided that "validity" was exactly what miners decided, by building upon the blocks they "signed off" as valid.  That's the core of bitcoin's PoW consensus mechanism.  So that's the definition of "valid".  If there are no software monopolists any more that can, also on a whim, decide this or that, because everybody NEEDS their software, then that's all that is left as a decision mechanism, because there's no central authority any more.

==> bitcoin becomes decentralized, and hence without "morals", without "good" and "bad" apart from its very own definition of good and bad: the block chain.

Many who want to compromise let's find the operator.

"They vote with their CPU proof-of-worker, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- S. Nakamoto

Again, I ask you cite where I stated anything that would need new rules
or new nodes. Everything I stated is occurring as we speak and has occurred
since 2010. I'm talking about verifying nodes, not UASF.

I know you are paranoid of UASF, but I'm not talking about that.




Well I disagree with your interpretation of things.
Satsohi clearly thought those things were attacks.
Security experts would consider those things attacks.

Your argument is comparable to "when hackers or malware enter into nuclear
power plants in order to implement code actions that will cause that facility
to go into an uncontrolled systematic meltdown, which will affect tens of
thousands of people somewhat immediately, and tens of millions to
hundredths of millions for multiple generations with diseases and
environmental effects, you are saying that isn't an attack on that nuclear
facility, humans, or the environment, but is only the "behavioral definition
of that nuclear system." With such a viewpoint of things, even murder of
another human being is the behavioral definition of humans, so according to
your argument, murder is natural and not an attack on that other individual
and their rights. From this point forward, no one should take any of your
arguments seriously or legitimately contemplate it's soundness.

This argument type, in order to circumvent my argument, should be reexamined
since it leads down a road that is not healthy for Bitcoin, nor for life in general.
This thinking is neither creative nor genius, it is blatantly malicious to life and
intelligent advancements. It is no wonder you would take the position that PoW
is the only "power" system within Bitcoin, your thinking is already twisted.




No, you are very incorrect in multiple areas.

Valid and Invalid is defined by the rules that which we all currently abide by
in Bitcoin. Saying that valid or invalid work is only based upon the whims of
what decision a miner builds on another miner's block, is very simplistic at
the least.

There is a central authority that defines information and that is the blockchain
itself. The "blockchain" is centralized, yet is secured by decentralized
independent verifying nodes throughout the world. The "blockchain" system
that Satoshi created is not a simple ledger, that is your misunderstanding.
Your argument ignores realities that we live within, while attempting to argue
something that has never been proven true.

The whitepaper does not explain the complexities of the blockchain system
itself, and thus since you rely on that paper and statements from people who
do not understand anything beyond that 9 year old paper, you are ignorant of
the realities. The "blockchain" enforces the rules and is a centralized structure.
The "blockchain" was designed to monitor the miners, not just the token, that
was secondary when created. The public ledger provides proof for everyone,
other than the miners, in order to verify the miners' block work and that it is
valid and in compliance with the current protocol. The public ledger was not for
tokens alone, that is a secondary effect which helps facilitate proof between two
individuals transacting. So the ledger is for miner proofs and token proofs.
You do not understand the interconnect aspects of Bitcoin since Satoshi did
not publicly advise you of such in plain writing for you to blindly follow.

Your argument that there is no valid or invalid behavior in Bitcoin, contradicts
what Satoshi attempted to create. Satoshi tried to create symbiotic system of
compliance from untrusted parties through public proofs. If Satoshi envisioned
the Miner's to have 100% control to determine validity, there is no need for
public proofs. The system could have been designed to be private without blocks.
The purpose for a public blockchain contradicts your whole argument in many ways.

In addition, your example of gravity does not apply to this argument, you must use
a system with rules that has valid or invalid properties and then show me why there
is no actual difference between the two properties. You are trying to argue that in
Bitcoin, and possibly all simple and complex systems that exist in this universe,
there are no truths or falsehoods (though an argument can be made in other
discussion types, when it applies to physical reality that humans accept as being
concrete/"real", we can not argue this type of argument, especially in sciences
and likewise in Bitcoin). So, this example is worthless and a distraction.

This argument type, as applied to Bitcoin which clearly has enforcement
mechanisms and protocols that are directly programmed into the system,
invalidates your form of thinking and argument type entirely and outright. It is
one thing to be philosophical in Bitcoin in order to explain failures or successes or
how systems work within the Bitcoin system or are comparable, it is another to
make an argument that existence is illusionary, murder and birth are equivalent,
and valid and invalid bitcoin blocks are neither in compliance nor in violation.
This is not the reality that the community currently exists in. Satoshi specifically
created rules and regulations within our system before he formed the Genesis block.

The only reason why you are arguing this is so that Miners can determine all
actions 100% of the time, in 100% of all possible scenarios. What you failed to
realize is that in majority of those scenarios, there is no value in that new Bitcoin
system or it's token. When the miners take an action, as theorized by your argument,
in theory they will neutralize and void the novel properties that the system created
and thus void the monetary properties of the Bitcoin token. You only wish to be right
in your argument and have not applied this to real world possibilities and final
outcome probabilities. Your argument is that the consumer is a blind moron and
these miners will sell a lie since there are no truths anyway. Your argument is to
convert Bitcoin from a novel interesting system that's byproduct is a digital truth,
and transform it into a purposeful ponzi where the properties are illusions and scams.




First, that is only based on a current viewing of transitory events.
Second, there are times where miners getting together to discuss issues is
appropriate, as long as it is made public and a true record is made public. All separate
groups within the Bitcoin Community should have separate and together meetings
and discussions to determine certain aspects of the Bitcoin system. Consensus does
not come about in a vacuum, but through time and discussions. When the best possible
choice has the most backing from all groups (devs,miners, exchanges, economies,
users, etc) then an action is taken and within Consensus. So not all meetings are bad.

Back on topic, for Bitcoin to become a "trusted corporate platform" it must have a small
amount of miners all licensed and regulated by their respective governments. Your
belief either means that large miners are currently secret governmental operations,
will outmaneuver government regulation forever (not likely as blocksize increases in
short intervals of time), or are just dumb or suicidal.




I agree with everything other than your immutability term.

Immutability has nothing to do with what you stated otherwise.
Immutability only exists as long as there is no purposefully undoing past work to
erase or prevent a valid on-chain action.




I do not think in corporate terms, you ignore my overall argument to now talk about
mining pools and corporate terms. Those were not my arguments so you either
don't understand me or are intentionally changing the subject. Your statement above
doesn't even address my statement in anyway. I am talking about how Bitcoin is a
symbiotic organism that each sub system feeds into the next, allowing it to survive.
You are talking about only mining and ignoring all other sub systems.

Mining pools being "decentralized mining" is deceptive since it is only the final block
signal that is important. I could have 80% of the hash within a mining pool and the
20% are thousands of individuals. In theory, my 80% hash will allow me to have
majority signaling within that pool, thus that pool is not a true pool, but is effectively
my single mining facility. So in that sense, Mining Pools are equivalent to single miners
since they have possibility of being exploited.

Anyway, my paragraph that you quoted was making the point that after 200 blocks,
the miners past block reward is allowed to be moved (by the terms of the current
protocol). If a miner hardforks without verifying nodes following, that block reward
after 200 blocks, is lost to that miner since it does not exist to anyone other than
the miner(s). The miner needs the exchanges and users to follow the chain they
are building upon. But, what my argument is and that you continue to never address
is that there is no mechanism that forces exchanges or users to follow this new chain.

So, the fact that this is our reality, means that the miners do not control the chain
or the future of Bitcoin, but only have the power through PoW to determine block
inclusions and block building. The true power and control comes from the users
who are using or speculating the value, which is purchased or paid by P2P (as
Satoshi envisioned and designed) or exchanges. Thus, the miners are only an
economically enforced competitive mechanism within the full Bitcoin organism,
that is subject to the wills of the non-miners and are used by the non-miners as
a proxy to cause chain determinations. That is my point and argument. Yet you
do not ever address why I am wrong, instead you say that valid and invalid blocks
are illusions and purposefully ignore the rules of the system.

Instead of agreeing with my reasoning or disagreeing based on a misunderstanding
of mine or incorrect procedure of the Bitcoin system, you argue that miners can and
will change the rules, which doesn't prove true legitimate power but shows that if
miners can't influence or coerce, they will just change the rules of the game on
their own, in mid-game like children who lose in children's games. Satoshi never
intended that and would consider that an obvious attack to all non-miners.




I agree with everything except your term of "emergent protocol of the past".

I do not understand what that means since the protocol is not emergent in
Bitcoin currently. There may be aspects of the system that are "emergent"
but the protocol was not intended to be. Satoshi's protocol was intended to
freeze and not be adjusted, unless there are bugs/emergencies. The protocol
can not be emergent since that is an obvious attack vector through time, only
subsystems of Bitcoin can be emergent. The base protocol itself was not intended
to evolve, that is a modern day misconception that only came about around
sometime in 2015 to 2016. We can add features, scripts, subsystems, and etc,
but "evolving protocol through time" is extremely concerning. The value of the
system and token no longer becomes a known entity that is dependable and
trusted, but becomes nebulous and fully at the will of attackers and the ignorant.
Who would trust a digital asset/currency, that at any time, pushed by any party,
could change the systems rules through this emergent mechanism? You are arguing
for the exact mechanism that the financial world uses and that which Satoshi was
upset about. It is an exploit, not an advantage. Your Emergent Protocol Mechanism
will be used to erode and ultimately destroy Bitcoin.




In our current system, Mining pools being considered decentralized is an
assumption. You have chosen to trust untrustable parties. You must assume
all miners are already compromised and colluding. It would be very passive and
naive to think otherwise in the system we participate. It does not matter whether
they are business corporations or not, that is irrelevant.




Yes and No.
The issue that you are talking about now, is whether "Miners follow the blockchain"
or the "blockchain follows the Miners". Though I do not care about UASF and have
not been discussing it, the USAF theory is partially based on what I am referring to.

So, we have two choices:

1) Your Argument.
(a) Miners have full authority to do what they please in all scenarios.
(b) The "Consensus" only exists between the miners.
(c) The "blockchain" only exists to facilitate their consensus.
(d) The "markets" only exist to facilitate that consensus.
(e) The "users" only exist to facilitate that consensus.

Results of 1:
Bitcoin as a currency/commodity only exists as the Miner's delusion.
Value of the system and token is comparable to current financial systems.
Experiment is a failure since the Miner's dominated over the system.
The token is an illusion and all aspects serve no purpose.



2) My Argument.
(a)The Verifying Nodes reinforce that Miners comply with current rules.
(b) The "Consensus" exists between Miners and Economic/Verifying Nodes.
(c) The "blockchain" only exists to facilitate their collective consensus.
(d) The "markets" already are included in Section (b).
(e) The "users" are already included in section (b) or (d).

Results of 2:
Bitcoin as a currency/commodity exists as a trustless consensus from diff parts.
Value of the system and token is compared to a digital truth.
Experiment continues since the Miners only move with all non-miner nodes.
The token is quazi-concrete and all aspects are reinforced and secured.



My point, though the Miners are the only subsystem that has the power to build,
pick, or move between the chains (which no one ever, anywhere, has ever
disputed), that does not mean their unilateral action and consensus between
themselves is always correct or creates a valuable future. Due to that being
plainly obvious, the conclusion is that their decision of a future action is based
upon non-miners participation in consensus before action. The non-action is
reinforced by verifying nodes "not following the non-compliant chain". The
Miner's gamble with a certain "non-compliant proposal" would only be deemed
correct by market forces which are manipulable and disconnected from the
community, who are legitimately using the Bitcoin token. The miners are placing
their future in the hands of deceptions (which makes sense from your arguments
point of view since you think all things are illusions anyway).

There should always be one chain, one token, otherwise the market will slowly
destroy the whole system. The human markets are not a true decider, it is a whore
who consumes over time. The effects of it's destruction is not known till may years
into the future. Bitcoin was not designed to have it's future determined by the
human markets. Market determination is the opposite of Consensus. Only the
token is speculative, not the protocol, not consensus, not miners, not verifying
nodes. In opposition, you have argued that all matters of the system, including
the protocol, is speculative and up for debate within the human markets. That is
not Bitcoin as Satoshi designed, that is an attack vector. You wish Bitcoin's Protocol
to be controlled by an insatiable manipulative whore.

Your faith in the human markets is a way to defer your responsibility to others, so
that when Bitcoin collapses and is destroyed by your actions and arguments for
Emergent Protocols, you can wash your hands and say, "I was not wrong, the
markets only revealed the truth to us.". So, you want the great whore to tell
you what is truth. I ask you what was the truth that Satoshi understood and
millions of people learned in 2008-2009? You are in opposition of that truth.




No, the only difference between a verifying node and a mining node is that
miner nodes create blocks using PoW algo. Creating blocks does not
guarantee valid or invalid. That is a lie that is easily determinable because
PoW DOES NOT MANDATE VALIDITY, they are separate parts. Miners have 3
parts and Verifying Nodes have 2 parts. The difference is only block building
(thus some call them non-mining nodes, since they do all else).

Miners choose the chain in the event of a fork, but that does not mean that fork
is valid or invalid, that is semantics. Validity is determined by whether the rules
are enforced and verification of signatures occurred within the last block, not
future blocks. That is not security based but maladjusted argument based.
Validity is a proof, it has either occurred or not. When you argue validity is not
a proof, it is quite shocking and evident that your argument is nonsense.

Once again, I disagree with your interpretation of current events and how the
current system functions. I would also like to point out that you never directly
addressed my statements and advise why my beliefs are incorrect. Instead, you
continue to repeat the same thing over and over, which has been disproved by
history and current events.

Yesterday, I read a document produced by Barry Silbert and certain institutions
within the Bitcoin Community (I disagree with the terms of that agreement,
especially since the terms are nebulous and empty. An agreement is intended
to define things, not obfuscate issues more. This agreement will likely create
more damage to a real agreement or consensus than bring about any resolution.).
The fact that any miner participated and agreed with that document, and join with
those other signing entities, proves my overall argument. Every non-miner who
signed that document is effectively a non-mining node. That document is a present
day representation of why my viewpoint and argument is correct (though I disagree
with the agreement itself).

Until a miner or miners hardfork the chain without high consensus and the
community and users follow along like lost children, you will always be wrong with
your understanding as to the miner's power. That power, as intended by Saotshi
in 2007, failed and eroded within a short time after the client was released and tested.
If you wish to ignore that reality since you depend on the whitepaper being 100%
correct, since it is the only foundation of your understanding of these issues, then so
be it. But that doesn't mean you are correct, that only means you are ignorant of
things that you are not specifically told about by Satoshi.

Satoshi understood in 2010 that what we call "Nakamoto Consensus" today,
failed almost immediately. He implemented the 1MB Cap to prevent the foreseeable
failures from Miner centralization too soon and then left. Ultimately today, Miners
and Verifying & Economic Node together form our "Consensus" in order to determine
the future path. If Miners claim sole power, as per the terms of the "Whitepaper", they
will discover what Satoshi knew in 2010 and what you deny. The truth is that PoW,
though very important for the Bitcoin/blockchain system, does not actually affect the
networks consensus in any advanced way. The PoW Consensus (Miners) has been
relegated to turning a wheel in a car, driven by the Verifying & Economic Nodes.
Basically, in the most simple terms, when ASICs came about and mining became
centralized, Satoshi's original experiment failed (Whitepaper). He patched as best
he could and began our current experiment. This experiment version (Verifying Nodes
are maintained in a decentralized, independent, and non-regulatable way in order
to offset the failures and anticipated future failures from Experiment 1) evolved
naturally from the 1MB Cap being implemented.

What the average (and some advanced) Bitcoiner fails to realize is that Bitcoin only
exists today and functions at all, because he implemented the 1MB Cap to off set his
fatal error. They do not see the truth, because Satoshi did not recite it to them from
the mountain top. The truth is, there is no such thing as "honest nodes". All nodes
are deemed malicious and untrusted. Only the decentralized independently verified
ledger is "honest". Those who wish to implement the Whitepaper version of Bitcoin,
and bring back "honest nodes" are misguided at best or purposefully destructive at
worst.  Satoshi is dead and so is Bitcoin Experiment Version 1.  We need to accept
this and create new possibilities, not fall back to old misunderstandings and old
theories that came from lack of knowledge. We have advanced much in 9 years
and we need to move forward not back. Miners are only one part of a multi part
organism in Bitcoin Experiment Version 2. If you want a Version 3 with SegWit
and/or blocksize bumps, that is fine within Consensus, but going back to Version 1
where success or failure is contingent only on a certain percentage of "honest (miner)
nodes" is very flawed and dangerous.

I agree nor do they use it.  They're all theory.

Core devs are hard core players don't play like pussies. They don't have much BTC they don't need easy PnD it on market and take all solutions that may pump prices up.
We need to be critical and we will go to moon if we find way to go around problems.

This is the very idea of a UASF.


That is your belief. You ignore that the system is cyclical. Each part of the
system feeds the fuel for the next part. When you say "the v-nodes stop
and can't transact" you are ignoring where the miners coins ultimately go
after 200 more confirmations. You ignore that the whole system will
eventually stop. You think the party goes on forever.
[/quote]

This is again because you think in corporate terms.  There are not "two camps with two leaders".  There are not "two armies facing one another, with each their general".

Each mining pool is an individual entity, and each user (whether Joe or whether Coinbase) is an individual entity, that is not in a hierarchical relationship, or in any other form of collusion, with any other entity.  That is the hypothesis of decentralization: no collusion, no agreements, between individual entities.  From the moment there are agreements on collective action, the system is by definition, centralized under the authority of the one organizing the collective action.  So we presume that mining pools don't sit together in a room, and we presume that users (even big ones) don't sit together in a room.  If they do, we have a corporate organisation.

Now, at any given moment in time, each of these entities has to make an INDIVIDUAL choice, between "adhering to what is running", or "deviating from what is running".  For a miner, that means, forking.  As long as a miner is mining according to the emergent protocol of the past, and is making blocks that most probably will be accepted by his peers, he's not deviating.  From the moment he starts rejecting blocks that his peers make, or start producing blocks that will be rejected by his peers, he forks away, and tries to build an alternative chain.

If a miner takes that decision individually, he's most probably going to make, as a first one, a risky move.  He can bet on the fact that other miners will see this and take the decision to follow him, or not, but making a bitcoin fork on your own, is risky: you may waste all your hash rate doing so.  In a decentralized system, miner pools need to take these decisions individually.  If they sit together in a room, the system is a corporate centralized entity.

If an individual user installs non-mining node software at a moment "t" in time that is not compatible with the unique chain that is being made at that very moment, most probably, at that very moment, this new software will simply not sync.  If that individual user needs his node to connect his wallet to, he will not have a functioning wallet, and will not be able to transact.  If he needs these transactions for his business, he kills his business.

As such, for each individual entity, the act of "deviating" is most probably a losing one.  It for sure is a losing one for the node owner.  It CAN be a risky but profitable bet for the miner, forking away.   It is true that *users* telling a miner that if he forks away, and he can keep his chain alive (which is difficult with bitcoin, given the slow difficulty adaptation) he may win in the market, might motivate him to jump and take the risk, if he thinks that the fork will be more beneficial to him, than the original protocol.   However, the nodes not being directly proportional to the user power in the market, counting node votes is a very bad market study.  Probably the market behaviour is not going to change because some nodes signal something.  So whether there are signalling nodes or not, doesn't change much, in fact, for the miner's decision.  But again, the *decision* is entirely in the hands of miners.  All the rest is just "propaganda".


I'm not saying that only miner nodes matter.  I'm saying that only miner nodes define what is valid, what is the consensus protocol, what is the consensus history etc....   But they don't determine market value.  That's left to the users. And of course miners are sensitive to the market value.

I'm just saying that in this symbiosis, as you call it, there's no *power* role for non-mining nodes.  There's utility, but that utility is mainly for its owner, and it is also a free proxy service for mining pools.   But they don't master any lever arm in the power game in that "symbiosis", which I rather see as half symbiosis, half predator-prey.

Still waiting for an answer to these two questions.

No, we aren't talking about that. That is what you keep talking about.
I am talking about invalid work created intentionally or by accident.




Please cite in any of my prior statements where users or verfying node
operators are downloading ad implementing protocol violating rules. I
have never said anything along those line. I am talking about the current
protocol, not any possible future protocols or etc.




What you are describing without overwhelming community consensus is
an attack on the network. It would be an act of war that has not occurred
within Bitcoin ecosystem yet. What you are advocating is the annihilation
of the trustless network and the creation of a trusted corporate platform.

The users will not follow the miners without very high support. Otherwise
it is an attack on the network and those miners will create more enemies
than allies.

You wish to open pandora's box, then do it. Stop bullshitting and do it
already. Stop putting your toes in the water and lets get this party started.
Miner's have not done so yet, because the network and the users have not
agreed to it yet. If the miners don't need permission, do it already.

Miners are just bluffing and everyone knows, that is why no one cares and
disregards them now. They have overplayed their hand.




That is your belief. You ignore that the system is cyclical. Each part of the
system feeds the fuel for the next part. When you say "the v-nodes stop
and can't transact" you are ignoring where the miners coins ultimately go
after 200 more confirmations. You ignore that the whole system will
eventually stop. You think the party goes on forever.

You are ignoring the full symbiotic Bitcoin organism just to argue that
Verifying Node have no value and that only Miner nodes matter. Overall
it is a shortsighted argument.

This sucks so far for bitcoin. Otherwise bitcoin will be a lot stronger. The tech is there, I don't understand why people won't compromise to make bitcoin better.

i dont see why core can't compromise to 2mb + segwit and some road map to allow bigger blocks.

You need increasing on chain transaction to incentivize miners via fees, and also some capacity in LN tranasactions.

It is suspicious that core seems to not agree to this. Particually as LTC seems to have agreed to it

No. I disagree with your answer and again you ignore what I am saying.

Valid work is not Consensus, you are confused. Consensus is the combination
of PoW (Work) & Verification (Valid). If Miners only do PoW, and ignore Validation,
it falls to the Verifying Nodes to check Validation. If you don't understand that,
you likely don't want to. I'm talking very plain here.




You are ignoring my argument and nitpicking certain terms.
You are stating the obvious. Are you really this oblivious to what I am saying?

The violating chain will be orphaned by the violating miners themselves, when
the verifying nodes alert the network of an issue. The miners will then find themselves
alone and will either correct themselves or the community will contact them and tell
them to correct. This scenario assumes the miners are not attacking, but is only a mistake.




Again, you ignore what has actually occurred in the past.
The exchanges stop accepting and withdrawing transaction. They freeze.
Then wallet developers and Bitcoin developers sent out alerts throughout the
Bitcoin Social Media Sites and advise all Bitcoiners to not sent transaction until
the issue is resolved.

If miners perform a mistake or an attack, we will do this again.




Oh graciously? That's an interesting word in light that your argument is that "miners always
build valid blocks on the only valid chain that they singularly determine to be valid". Lol.
Miners are blind busy-workers only intended to reconcile differences, yet many times they
aren't paying attention.

The miners in both events, didn't even know what was occurring in real time. They were not
monitoring the network. They were blinded as that there were two forks. The only reason why
miners were alerted was because non-mining nodes were detected to the issues and then
non-miners determined which chain to orphan. The miners then complied with that advice.
Gracious is pretty brown-nosing.



You clearly do not understand what I have been trying to explain.
You are too busying trying to prove that verifying nodes do nothing at all.

If you are correct, then the miners should have hardforked for larger blocks long ago.
Everyday they do not perform a hardfork, is a day that my argument is correct and
yours is based on wishful thinking.




No. PoW does not always need to be valid work. There are no mechanisms that
exist within the PoW Consensus mechanism that determines if the work is valid.
Validity only comes from verification of the contents of that work. Fake work
could be performed upon fake blocks and repeated. Validation only exists when
a miner or a verifying node intentionally check and verify the contents.




LOL! Well there you have it. Your understanding is fucked.
I will make it very simple.

Scenario 1 - Valid Work
Miner PoW + Miner Validation + Protocol Compliance = Good Chain (Level 1 - Miner)
Verifying Node Validation + Protocol Compliance = Good Miner Chain (Level 2 - Everyone Else)

Scenario 2 - Non-Validated Work aka Invalid Work
Miner PoW - Miner Validation + Protocol Compliance = Unknown Chain (Level 1 - Miner)
Verifying Node Validation + Protocol Compliance = Good or Bad Miner Chain (Level 2 - Everyone Else)

Scenario 3 - Protocol Violating Work aka Invalid Work
Miner PoW + Miner Validation - Protocol Compliance = Unknown Chain (Level 1 - Miner)
Verifying Node Validation + Protocol Compliance = Good or Bad Miner Chain (Level 2 - Everyone Else)

Scenario 4 - Non-Validated & Protocol Violating Work aka Invalid Work
Miner PoW - Miner Validation - Protocol Compliance = Unknown Chain (Level 1 - Miner)
Verifying Node Validation + Protocol Compliance = Good or Bad Miner Chain (Level 2 - Everyone Else)

Scenario 5 - Bad PoW & Non-Validated & Protocol Violating Work aka Invalid Work
Miner PoW - Miner Validation - Protocol Compliance = Bad Chain (Level 1 - Miner)
Verifying Node Validation + Protocol Compliance =  Bad Miner Chain (Level 2 - Everyone Else)

If Bad PoW is performed in any different version of a block scenario combination,
it is always rejected as a bad block. Verifying Node do not need to check that work
since it is always wrong. There is no need to validate bad PoW.

My arguments apply to Scenarios 2 through 5. That is what I am talking about.
When I have talked about "Vetos" I am referring to Level 2 of each scenario.
When a Level 2 event occurs, Verifying nodes could rejects the miners invalid work.

It seems your argument is that scenarios 1 through 5 are always valid chains
because the miner says so. That is very laughable and I wish we could test your
belief in the real world, but unfortunately for me, not all miners are that dense.




Nope. You talk nonsense. As you can see above in my Scenario example, there
are times where valid work is not valid. You are redefining terms to fit within
your word games. Valid work is always independently verified. Block on top of
block does not guarantee verification. Only by checking the PoW and the block
contents is the work valid.

Under your misguided definition, if all miners stop verifying data or violate the
protocol, and they build blocks that are all lies, you would still consider that
good and valid work. If that is what you are really saying and believe, I'm
disappointed that I bothered to explain my view point to you, since you are
unsalvageable or just malicious.




Lol. No, your statement and understanding is an oversimplification of what is
actually occurring. PoW is one part. What you are arguing is only part of the story.




This is irrelevant to our discussion.
Changing the protocol in the future and whether immutability actually exists  
within a blockchain system are entirely separate topics.




This is irrelevant to our discussion.
I have no interest in Verifying Nodes that change the rules in an attempt to
compel the miners to those new rules. Your are changing the topic. In this
recent argument, it is no wonder why you are arguing against my Verifying
Node view point. The real reason you are disagreeing with me, is that you
don't like the logic that it leads to into the UASF proposal. Whether my logic
flows into the UASF proposal is irrelevant and I am only discussing what
Verifying Nodes have been doing since 2010.

So the reality is that your fear of UASF has blinded you to my point unrelated
to UASF.



This is irrelevant to our discussion. I never made statements to the contrary of
what you are now expounding upon. You are talking to yourself here.

You ignore my statements in order to make a speech about some of the flaws in
UASF proposal. You are telling me what I already know and have never argued for.
I am talking about non-mining validating nodes and whether they have value to the
network or not. Your argument has been that they provide no service and that miners
should be worshiped as trusted noble parties.

My argument is miners serve the network, the network does not serve them.
If a point comes where the network serves them, the network is worthless and
the miners will be the last to know, as usual.

My whole argument is, that no, they won't stop. Because they need to transact. You would probably be right with a technical incident, like happened in the past.  Something that those causing it weren't even aware of, and say "oops, sorry for the inconvenience".  Yes.  But this is not what we are talking about this time.  We are talking about economic and political choices.  We are talking about miners that continue to make a valid chain according to the old rules, with the old software, ON PURPOSE.
And we are talking about users that want/need to transact.  So what you are imagining, is that users are going to download, themselves, new software of which they KNOW that it will not agree with what miners are producing, to stop their own ability to transact, and think that:
1) they will do so and put themselves out of the system that way
2) this will affect the miners in any way

is totally misguided.  

I would even say, even though it is bolder: if miners purposely decide themselves to modify their protocol (which is a difficult thing to do for them, and they can only consider that if they have a large majority, because they take the initiative to fork away), and ALL of them do so, then users and exchanges still have to follow, because if they don't, they exclude themselves.    

Technically, bitcoin is made such that as long as there is only one block chain out there, there's no choice but to use it or to leave it.  If you leave it, you don't have access to your coins, you cannot transact, you cannot receive transactions.  It is as if you left bitcoin.  If you accept it, you accept the consensus protocol by which it is being built.

But in all of this, the essentially difficult and impossible step, is for those "stepping out".  For miners, stepping out means MODIFYING the protocol they are used to.  For full nodes, stepping out means: installing software that is not compatible with the actually made chain.

For miners, this implies that they fork away.
For nodes, it means that they stop.

This is the strong force of immutability.  For every actor, it is individually a crazy thing to do to deviate from the actual consensus protocol.   For miners, it means that they might start wasting all their hash rate.  For nodes, it means that they exclude themselves, and cannot transact any more.

There is no such thing as community.  There are individual entities that make individual choices, but that are limited to the technical capabilities they have.  There is no notion of "valid work".  There are just external factors, and each entity's own decisions.  The whole of this behaves in a certain way.

Bitcoin was designed to call by definition "valid work" (but it is called "consensus") what emerges as the block chain.  No more, no less.  That's its basic tenet.  If it is on the block chain, by definition, it is valid, and if it is not there, it "doesn't exist".  As such, the only judges of valid work, are those that make a block chain, and for that, a technical necessity was introduced, proof of work.  So not just anyone can pretend to build a block chain, he has to provide cryptographically secured proof of work.

Of course, dissent can happen, and then, several different block chains, with different rules, can be built.  We're talking about forking.   As such, there are two notions of "valid work", namely the two chains.

What you can do, as an outsider to that writing of block chains, is download and read the data.  That's it.


"orphaned" means, that miners are building ANOTHER chain.  Again, you are making a logical mistake.  No non-miner can orphan anything.  Orphaning means: a block that is a small fork, but has no other blocks built onto it, while his parent (or his parent's parent, or ....) has ANOTHER successor (built by a miner of course) on which a continuing chain is being built.  These notions have NO MEANING outside of what miners do.

As a non-mining node, you cannot "orphan" a block, because you cannot BUILD a competing chain !


But again, if all miners say the work is valid, they don't orphan it, and *it is the only chain that is available* to users.

So, in as much exchanges and users are aware of this, they have only two options:
A) accept the sole chain that is out there
B) not accept it and STOP.

Now, as I outlined already several times, choices are made INDIVIDUALLY, and so each entity by itself can chose to continue using bitcoin the way it is (the existing chain, which, by definition of consensus, is "the valid one"), or simply STOP, but then they cannot transact any more, cannot receive anything any more.  Do you really think that individually, each user will decide to forego his ability to transact, while his competitors can still do so ?


Ah.  You mean that all miners had been mining for a while a "wrong" chain, and then, because users stopped transacting, they decided to wind back the chain collectively, under pressure of the non-mining nodes ?  That never happened.
You are talking about the bug  of 8/8/2010 - I suppose that's a joke ; or you are talking about the rollback of 11/3/2013, when there was a genuine hard fork in bitcoin due to two incompatible versions ?   What happened then was that miners forked accidentally.  And those on the buggy fork graciously stopped their fork.  They could have continued too, but at that date, nobody knew what such things would do.

Note that this didn't have anything to do, AGAIN, with non-mining nodes.  MINING nodes were making two different block chains by error, because there was a bug in version 0.8 that allowed big blocks (huhuhu), and other miners, still running version 0.7 didn't accept that, and made another fork.  

This is absolutely not what one is talking about here.  This was considered, back then, as a bug, not a matter of choice or power.
And at that time, the mining industry wasn't yet entirely separate from the customers/users, and Core was still the accepted sole centralized authority that decided about everything.


What you don't seem to understand, is that if you have no power to build a new block on top of an old one, which is the sole WAY to validate the old block, your validation is without any power.  PoW means that there's only one way to validate a history, to turn it into a consensus: building on what you want to validate.  As such, the only ones that have power to validate, are mining pools.

Yes, you can VERIFY FOR YOURSELF.  But that's only *informational*.  You can see "hey, the consensus, validated by PoW, wasn't following the rules I have in my software here".  So now you know. But that's it.  Your "validation" has no value in the consensus mechanism, because you didn't build on top of it with PoW.

"valid chain" is the chain that is being build.  If a chain forks, there are two alternative "valid chains".  But the only ones deciding about what's valid or not, are those that validate an old block, by putting a new block on top of it.  


Then, BY DEFINITION of PoW consensus, this is the good chain.  The good chain, is by definition, what is built with PoW on top of one another.  The definition of good block is the one on top of which miners build.  

There can be forks, and then there are two alternative "good chains", with different notions of "good".



Nope.  As you can technically see, there is no veto power to be had, because by definition, the chain being build is the good one.  But your full node can INFORM you that what is now out there as "good chain" is not being built according to the rules that were put in your software.  That's all.  You can take your economic decisions based upon that, but even if you don't like it, and you want to sell your coins, you will have to accept the new chain, at least for the time of you transacting and selling your coins.  Because if you don't accept that chain, you cannot do ANYTHING.


This is simply because in bitcoin, they *define* what is the valid chain.  They don't have to take into account anything else.  By definition of "consensus by PoW", the chain on which miners build, is the valid chain, and the rules by which they build it, is the de facto protocol.   You can use that chain, or you can refuse to use it, and if you refuse to use it, you locked yourself out from any transaction possibility.

It is quite amazing that people don't seem to understand the fundamental consensus mechanism by proof of work.  There is no such thing as "verification consensus".  The only consensus that exists, is the one that is given by proof of work.  According to bitcoin's fundamental design.  And the "valid protocol by consensus" is WHATEVER is the rule set that comes out of this consensus mechanism.

So if that consensus mechanism, today, says that bitcoin is the stuff made with blocks of 1 MB, then today, that's part of bitcoin's consensus.  If tomorrow, we DISCOVER that the only block chain out there has 10 MB blocks, then we can *observe* that the consensus protocol is visibly the one that has 10 MB blocks.  If in a few years, we *discover* that the only chain out there has block rewards of 500 BTC per block, then we can *observe* that the consensus protocol of bitcoin is one in which each block has a block reward of 500 BTC.   Consensus protocol is an emerging property, and is defined by whatever are the rules according to which the sole active chain out there is discovered/observed to be made.  However, individual antagony between miners and their resulting catch-22 for changing anything is such, that most probably, this consensus protocol is largely believed to be immutable.  But that is a property that is still to be seen, although, up to now, it seems to hold water.  Only a centralized force can modify that, if it can influence more than 51% of the hash rate.  In the past, Core was the central authority of bitcoin, and could hence impose the rule changes simply because all miners downloaded their software and blindly used it.  So in the past, the consensus protocol could change by Core's desires. 

But on top of that, we are in fact discussing a totally different situation.  Miners, for the moment, are not deviating from what is bitcoins' protocol.  In fact, what some desperately try to do, is to FORCE miners to deviate from the protocol they have been using until now.  This is even more impossible for non-mining nodes.  If miners keep on happily making the chain like they are used to, and suddenly, some nodes decide to CHANGE THEIR SOFTWARE, and find out that the new software has new rules that don't comply with how the miners have been making the whole chain all this time, then this *really* doesn't matter for those miners.  Note that in the few "rollbacks" we've seen, it was the NEW software that miners installed, that forked off, and one REVERTED to the old protocol, graceously (simply because nobody WANTED to make a fork).  If you install new, incompatible software with what is going on, and your new software is not going to agree with what is being produced, then that's really absolutely of no significance.

In a way, we are discussing how non-mining nodes could impose deviations from the protocol by their sheer majority.  You could see this as a way of attacking bitcoin: if ever a sheer majority of non-mining nodes can impose any modification of the protocol rules, and hence, make miners deviate from what was the set of rules by which the block chain was to be made, this would be an easy way of attacking bitcoin !

In fact, you could almost say that if ever this worked, if ever, putting a new protocol on full nodes, and by majority of full nodes, you force that new protocol upon miners, then bitcoin is in great danger.  Because I can just write any new protocol code, launch it on 10 000 nodes, and that would mean that miners have to comply to what I now launch as a new protocol ?  Even if it means, for instance, that every new block now contains a coinbase transaction to my address with 200 new coins ?  If I modify Core software to do that, and then I launch this on 10 000 nodes, miners are obliged to follow my protocol ?

No, that is what you wish to believe.

The economy and community does not follow the miners, they only
follow valid work. If the miners wish to consistently mine in opposition
of the verifying node network, then they will lose everywhere except
amongst themselves. Their recent work becomes worthless and will be
orphaned. The economy and community rejects that recent work.




They only receive each others blocks for expedited mining, not for verification.
The verification is done individually (and sometimes not at all) as well as by the
verifying node network. If all miners say the work is valid, yet the verifying node
network says it is not, the exchanges and community are alerted and stops since
the miners are building a bad chain. It is then possible that the miners caused this
invalidated chain either on purpose as a collective attack or as a mistake.

This exactly happened in the past (was a miner mistake then) and the economies
and community stopped transacting and rolled back their work (orphaned that chain).
The verifying node network saw that they were not validating their work (built bad chain)
and stopped everyone from using that chain. Your attempted argument now ignores
this historical event that proves my viewpoint. Your argument contradicts what did occur
in the past and what the community lived and learned from.




Nope. You have confused and combined two individual systems.
You have combined PoW with verification. They are separate systems and not
contingent upon the other. One involves computational hashing work and the
other involves validation of origins. Your understanding of modern mining is
incorrect.

You ignore that miners can create bad blocks and other miners could choose
to build on those bad blocks, thus creating bad chains. In those events, where
is the "Veto Power"? Where is the "checks & balances"? That is performed by
the Verifying Node network and you're purposefully ignoring that aspect for the
sake of your misunderstood argument.




This comment is irrelevant and in a way actually proves my point. Miners are
blind to the realities of the network and how it functions, and instead are only
concerned with the "rat race" that they conduct between themselves. They have
existed in this ignorant state for so long, they have deluded themselves into thinking
they are the controllers of the chain based upon outdated and incorrect Bitcoin theory.

The reality is that they are just one component in the blockchain system. Verifying
Nodes came about and become more important in time, while these miners ignored
everything other than the nonce. They are effectively five years behind everyone else.

To answer your question, if miners all created bad blocks and the verifying node
network detects this and stop relaying those blocks, the correct answer is the first
miner to notice this Verifying Node Network rejection and begin to rework on the last
valid block, is first to get more bitcoins when the chain needs to flip over. Those miners
who wish to charge forward on the bad chain, requiring everyone else including the
economies to follow them, will quickly discover no one behind them and that token
being worthless. Miners are not loyal to each other, but should only be loyal to the
validated chain. The Verifying Node network maintains the validated chain.

Your argument assume full miner obedience to each other miner, which either means
you believe the majority of miners are in secret collusion (an attack vector) or do not
understand what their power actually is. You cite PoW as if it is the only law, but that
is incorrect. PoW does not actually determine valid work, but is only "busy work".




No, you do not understand what I am saying or you are being intentional disingenuous.

If a miner creates a bad block, and other miners do not reject it but build upon it, the
validating node network will reject it for everyone other than the miners, and we will
all know the miners have gone off course. The community and economies freeze until
the miners are brought back into line. The community, developers, and economies then
all decide ASAP how we will rectify this bad work issue. Majority of the time, I would bet
99.999% of the time, all non-miners will agree to reject all that work and require that
work recommence again at the block prior to the invalid chain block. This is what we have
done in the past, and what will do again. Your argument that verifying nodes reject the
miners block and then do nothing is incorrect. It is an alert system for everyone. If the
miners do not wish to rely on what the verifying node network says, as a secondary
source from themselves, that is at their own discretion. But that does not absolve
themselves from a correction. They do not have free will. We all abide to the protocols.

Do you understand that or not? I can't make it any simpler.




Of course and I have never said otherwise. Your statement is Bitcoin 101.

But you are only referring to PoW Consensus. You ignore Verification Consensus.
Verification Consensus comes from independent decentralized Verification Nodes  
whose only job is to watch the miners PoW and confirm that they are building valid blocks.
When miners left the garages and basements of the world and consolidated within small
areas, verification nodes manifested to compensate and protect the Bitcoin system from
possible miner attacks. As miners consolidate and centralize, Bitcoin's security becomes
weaker. PoW Consensus is one small part of the whole puzzle. It is not the foundation.

Verification nodes and the "Verification Consensus" they perform for the community and
economies prevent the miners from unilateral power. Without them, miners can make bad
blocks and no one has any choice in the matter (this is your argument). Bad blocks and
dishonest miners become good and honest in your backwards malformed reality. Your
argument is either misguided or intentionally disingenuous.




Your argument is irrelevant and I never made such statements prior that would lead
down to this type of discussion. But for the sake of completeness I will comment slightly.

Yes, you are correct that creating 10,000 or even millions of verifying nodes is not enough
to cause "one side of the war to win over the other". That is obvious and not interesting.
I am not aware of anyone who is making those claims in general. It is very clear and no
one disputes that Mining Nodes build blocks based on the rules of PoW. In order to move
between chains, only the Miners (in theory) have the power to do so. But, and what you
are ignoring (possibly purposefully) is that Verifying nodes maintain the valid ledger for
everyone other than the miners. If this independent decentralized ledger alerts the
community and economies that a miner or miners are building invalid blocks, everyone
other than the miners stop, not just the nodes, that is stupid. All users, developers,
exchange owners, and etc are immediately alerted to a possible problem and are
advised to halt until the issue is resolved. That is what Verifying Nodes do.

I couldn't make it any simpler. In the past, when miners made bad blocks, the verifying
nodes alerted us and we told the miners to "pay attention and stop!". Those miners did
stop and reverted back to the valid chain. That only occurred because the Verifying Node
network did its job and told the community and economy the miner's work was bad.

So, if you think they do nothing, then you ignore that they protect the network from
bad miners or sloppy work. If you think that is not important and everyone should
defer to the miners decision without independent verification, then all I can say is
that you are not here for the right reasons. If you consider Verifying nodes as a
hindrance or a nuisance, it is very likely you are an attacker or just uninformed.
For the sake of being somewhat polite, I will believe that you are misinformed.

With coinbase taking LTC as an example..using it instead is a no brainer...had 2k tied up for 2 days...and yes I paid the fee on the btc transaction that was approparate....BEFORE it snag'd up the other week over 200,000 backlog......annoying...and now this is an option around using BTC...with 2 out of my last major moves to pay bills monthly (i mine ltc to btc) NOT going thru
promptly.....I feel forced to do this..just move it as LTC instead...(starting to get weird...i mine ltc to btc..i now move ltc to btc...why is it I even use btc now as a store of value? AT this rate of incaction on btc issues...I probably should just hold LTC)

This is one thing that makes me feel bitcoin disappointed. We can easily see that we are paying a fee four times higher than before (in USD). However, we have to pay high fees while transactions are not confirmed, it is unreasonable for them to refuse to compromise to solve this problem. If it continues, I think I will use a non-bitcoin coin.

... for themselves.


Why would they ?  They receive each-others' blocks.  If your node considers that block invalid, it doesn't propagate it. Concerning that block, it is as if your node was offline.  If your node is off line, miners don't stop mining.  If 90% of all non-mining full nodes are switched off in half an hour, miners will continue mining.  A full node that refuses a block on the block chain, is like a node that is switched off.  If it doesn't receive another block (from a miner) that is built on the last block that he accepted, it will stop building its own copy of a block chain, and that's it.   On the network, that node will be "silent" now (apart maybe from block requests of the block he refused).  It is like a node that fell behind.

The only thing miners care about, is that their block is accepted by OTHER MINERS, so that it gets included in the sole chain that is out there.  And as time is money for miners, they don't wait for that block to hop happily through the P2P network, they try to catch it from the source: their peers, directly.


Nope.  What you call "veto power" is the "consensus decision mechanism".  Now, in bitcoin, that consensus decision mechanism is solely decided by PoW.  In other words, the sole entities that have veto power are the miners that decide to build on YOUR block or on ANOTHER block that is valid according to THEIR rules.  If they decide that that block is valid according to their rules, and they decide to build on it, that block is now part of the block chain, and no other miner will put that into question.  If he does, systematically, he has FORKED OFF and decided to make a new chain.  

If many full nodes decide to use OTHER VALIDATION RULES than the rules that the miners use to accept their peers' blocks (which is what we are talking about), then these full nodes will simply receive the same block chain as anyone else, but will stop at the first block that is not in agreement with their local rules.  At that point, that node stops.  Nothing more.  This will not influence the miner's decisions to accept, or not, their peers' blocks: in fact, they are not even AWARE of it.  If your node stops because its hard disk is full, or because it has a rule set that is different and refuses a block, for the miners, there's no difference. You are not part of the system that is part of the consensus decision mechanism.  Bitcoin is designed that way: that mechanism is only working with PoW.  You don't have any.  And they don't need you to transmit blocks.  They get them from one another.  If you stop transmitting, that's stopping nobody.  Which is what your node will do: stop.



You can also say: if a lot of nodes on the network stop, but the miners (who are the defining entities of the network consensus, especially if that consensus is "keeping the old rules as always", because they are the ones who deliver PoW, and hence decide on consensus) continue to make a single chain, nobody is even going to notice, except maybe that a lot of nodes are stopping and falling behind, or disappear from the network.

If what you say is true, then I can kill bitcoin tomorrow.  I make a copy of core software, and change something in the rules, so that it doesn't accept the current block chain.  I now launch 9000 nodes on Amazon with that software.  Hey !  There's a majority of full nodes refusing the block chain !  Consensus mechanism is faulty !

It is exactly because of that easy Sybil attack on "full node majority" that Satoshi introduced Proof of Work for the consensus decision, to deny non-mining nodes (whose numbers can easily be manipulated and whose majority is a matter of launching nodes) any consensus decision rights !



But the very proof of the pudding is the eating: if in this "war", non-mining nodes had anything to say, one would already have seen massive Sybil attacks by armies of nodes pushing one or the other side.  That's not the case.   Running 10 000 nodes is cheaper than mining for a few hours.  The fact that this doesn't happen, is the proof that these full nodes don't mean anything.

If bitcoin was sensible to a large majority of full nodes doing weird things like refusing a block chain, then anyone wanting to bring down bitcoin would have a very easy way to do so.  Launch 100 000 nodes for a few days who refuse what's happening, and bitcoin would be dead.  
No, bitcoin has protected itself from the cabals of non-mining entities with Proof of Work.

The point is that if these entities install nodes that don't see blocks, then they kill their own business.  Concerning exchanges, what is their business ?  Exchange coins.  If two block chains exist, they have all the interest to list both of them, so that people can exchange one in the other.  Exactly as on ethereum.

Can you imagine an exchange telling its customers "nope, sorry, we can't accept deposits or withdrawals, because we installed a node that refuses the block chain that miners are making" ?  (this in the case where the miners didn't fork, but the "UASF" node is installed: it stops at the first non-segwit block, and comes to an eternal halt).

They are in the same catch-22 as the miners.  If the split took place, they could consider installing such a node.  As long as the split didn't take place, installing the node stalls their business.

And IF the miners did split, do you think an exchange is going to forego the huge benefit of having all bitcoin users spend one of their tokens (every bitcoin user now has TWO coins, one on the segwit chain, and one on the non-segwit chain, like with ETC/ETH) to buy the other one, and take fees on all these transactions ?
So they WILL list the old chain just as well as the new one.

Mind you that the minority chain will make blocks less fast.  So the segwit chain will be more congested than the non-segwit chain (the segwit chain will be in minority - if it were in the majority, there wouldn't be any discussion: it is a soft fork, so it would IMPOSE its majority on the entire chain).  It will be even more of a pain to transact on than the other chain.  Suppose now that users prefer the classical bitcoin chain in the market.   If the price plummets, miners will switch back to the old chain, and the segwit chain will maybe die (due to bitcoin's slow difficulty adjustment).  All segwit chain transactions lost !  If you sold your classical bitcoins, they're gone !  
The risk also exists in the other direction.  If segwit becomes majority, and the classical chain is overtaken, then it will simply be orphaned (due to the soft fork nature).  Everything you did on the classical chain is forgotten.  If you bought classical coins and sold your segwit coins, everything is gone !

So you better think what to do, because you have to buy the chain of which you think it is going to win ; but buying the minority chain is going to be difficult (it will be VERY SLOW) ; however, the majority chain may disappear if the minority (segwit) chain becomes majority.  What are you going to do ?

(I would cash out....)