- Recent invalid-block reorgs on BTC: I don’t know of a cle…

- Recent invalid-block reorgs on BTC: I don’t know of a clear, well-documented case in the last ~10 years where mainnet produced a consensus‑invalid block that economic/full nodes rejected and that rejection caused a reorg of the then‑best chain. The classic examples I gave (2010 overflow, 2013 split, 2015 BIP66) are older and involved patches and coordination, not “unchanged nodes spontaneously saving the day.”
- What full nodes actually buy you: They don’t fix bugs; they enforce whatever rules they run. Their significance is mostly deterrence and immediate local rejection—i.e., making it economically irrational for miners to mine invalid blocks, and ensuring any that are mined don’t propagate or get economic acceptance. When that deterrent works, you won’t see headline reorgs precisely because actors avoid triggering them.
- “Validation is symbolic” claim: If most economic weight runs validating nodes, it’s not symbolic—miners can’t profitably push invalid rules. But it’s true that this leverage is mostly latent and expressed via social/economic coordination, not frequent on-chain veto events.
- Decentralization criteria: If your bar is “only counts if we routinely observe invalid-block vetoes,” Bitcoin won’t score well. If your bar is “no small coalition can coerce rule changes because dissenters can keep enforcing old rules and retain an economic community,” Bitcoin scores better—though it still relies on social consensus and coordination costs are high.