If some party wants to arbitrarily increase the supply of m…

a non mining node cant do anything to prevent that

The market sets prices. High prices of non-diluted coins can eventually have miners go around eachothers' backs, as they like profits. You are in for short term disruptions, but that doesn't mean resistance is impossible.

by design miners want to stay with other miners and dont get orphaned. not sure how realistic this fears are. but anyways i agree there are ways to fight back. but the ability to watch a battle field is not the same as participating in it.

A non mining node does nothing to contribute to this.

This is also coming from the standpoint of "only subsidies are revenue" which is false as later it'll be mostly fees and the money supply won't be too relevant.

UASF

BTC has successfully overridden block producer consensus with full node UASF run by heavy hitters like exchanges and such. “Only block producers matter” is only true when you have adversarial hash with 2/3rds total network hash. Makes ya think ;)

Non-mining full nodes are analogous to proof of stake. Whereas proof of work is used as a consensus of extending the chain, stake played significant role to what and how will be done. This can change with a set in stone protocol so only pow really matters.

The "watching battlefield" analogy shows only one side of it all; the participants in it are fighting for coins I and others subjectively value. And I value debasement as a net negative.

software miner exchanges activated soft fork
the only people who had no say where the non mining nodes

I would venture to say that the number of people who hold BTC and BCH tokens, who would consider bitcoin to have completely failed if it were debased, would be able to send the state mandated branches down in price to the hundreds.

I would have said the same about the people who have BSV tokens, as of last week.

yes that is a legit way to have a say in it. you can pump or dump a coin/fork or make other people believe what is valuable or not to even prevent or force action or inaction. but running a non mining node does not change anything in the blockchain.

Functionally in this case; a non mining node is a form of protest speech, and the operation of such via social media posts is a veiled threat to destroy the value of the network which disagrees.

Imagine a hashpower majority going for a hypothetical 50% debasement, enriching themselves. If the cost to me resisting is <50%, thats what I'm doing. It means staying on the old chain, bidding for miners to put txs in blocks by upping the tx fee.

not really the vast majority of miners did not wanted to rock the boat and the minority went along with it. you can say the abc fork was a way for jihan to give big blockers something in order for them to not fight over their golden goose anymore.

Ironically, the 'bitcoin user' is defined successfuly by cryptoanarchist propaganda; they faked it until they made it- the non mining nodes had all the say- just not on the network of machines, but rather in the social network.

Its a threat of implosion.

the irony is a 'bitcoin user' cant use the fucking BTC thing because restrictions have been mandated by the committee, you get to 'use' a 'fullnode' that doesnt fucking do anything except bolster social media posts with the threat of lost network effect.

All it takes is a few exchanges running old code for profit, a few miners mining old chain txs for profit, and coin holders using old chain in order not to be debased. I don't really see what's so complicated about all this.

Its rather simple. You wont participate if you do not like the ruleset.

Its not the fullnode itself which makes this true, but your opinion, as voiced on social networks.

It's just profit seeking and cost minimization. Social media campaigns are besides the point. They are not necessary for me to not want to lose money.

Following through with the threat to cleave the network effect entails a loss of money at the least in the short term.

Social media is the fabric which holds the cypherpunk movement together in bitcoin.

1/2

consider that if your fullnode was stuck in high diff for weeks, you may reach out to social media to find the correct code for your fullnode to be in consensus with the rest of the fullnodes in the political movement.

Its my conviction that if Post-Segwit BTC were to have a whitepaper that represented its protocol, it would need a section on social media campaigns.

What correct code? It's just the old code that everyone ran. The debasers are the ones forking off when they run new confiscatory code.

I know you are familiar with the difficulty mechanism in BTC

Well, maybe. But it doesnt change the fact that you can attempt to resist bad changes to Bitcoin if you have a full node, whereas you can't if you don't. At least to my understanding.

Yes, it's very hard to transact for a while if you are on the minority fork.

If the unis and enterprises had the nodes, the protocol could be monitored with the same level of rigor.

The only thing that resists these changes is a unified ideology.

The only way to share ideology is via human communication.

the end result is you selling the egregious fork. this is done with the exchange and maybe the bank

Its even harder to co-ordinate with other activists using bitcoin-cli

I don't understand you. I showed how you can resist changes to Bitcoin, in self interest, if you have a node and others simultaneously seek profit. I've yet to see anyone convincingly show how you can't.

What coordination though? You run the old code, just as always.

that may not work.

depending on the level of repression.

at the root of the issue, it is monetary activism.

the coordination is necessary for access to the bitcoin codebase. it may require changes.

you just cant 'money' all by yourself.

If it's in my self interest not to accept getting debased, obviously this is true for others as well. Do you think they all happily install the latest client version with code that hurts them?

I think the power of buying and selling, which is the raison d etre for the fullnode having voice argument, can be done without a fullnode to the same measure. This tells me the issue lies elsewhere.

It's a possibility. Even though a full node and small blocks let you resist confiscatory tinkering, it does not at all let you escape all costs associated with such attempts. You still have high tx fees, possible double spends, slow confirmations etc..

extreme volatility, utter mayhem, etc.

this is precisely why i say it is a veiled threat.

'if you violate this social agreement on the rules of money, Im not coming with you'.

voice and exit. these options have the same function supported by code or not