Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30 📝 Original message:> On Jun 30, 2021, at ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30
📝 Original message:> On Jun 30, 2021, at 05:45, Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Eric,
>
> > A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce that knowledge
>
> It does. Nodes disregard invalid transactions and invalid blocks as if they never existed. It is not possible for any party to transact bitcoin in a way that violates the set of rules enforced by the network of consensus-compatible nodes that we call Bitcoin.
When Fincen walks into Coinbase and every other exchange (and white market business in the country), and tells them to change a rule or they are taking the CEO out in hancuffs for money laundering, I’m pretty sure that their node with not be able to prevent it.
Enforcement is always people. We use the term node as a metaphorical term for people who use the node to avoid taking bad money. Like those machines that test paper money, they offer no resistance themselves.
A node in a closet checking transactions, unconnected to any human actually rejecting the money in trade, offers no resistance to anything. It can be forked off without any consequence whatsoever.
This subject was discussed here during the BCH split. People were setting up nodes on cloud services, to boost numbers. These non-economic nodes were of course of no consequence, which was not a matter of debate. I’m explaining to you why that is.
The network ignores non-economic nodes as if they never existed.
> Zac
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:03 PM Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
>> A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce that knowledge.
>>
>> An economic node is a person who refuses to accept invalid money. A node only informs this decision, it cannot enforce it. That’s up to people.
>>
>> And clearly if one is not actually accepting bitcoin for anything at the time, he is not enforcing anything.
>>
>> The idea of a non-economic node is well established, nothing new here.
>>
>> e
>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2021, at 04:33, Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> > A node (software) doesn’t enforce anything. Merchants enforce consensus rules
>>>
>>> … by running a node which they believe to enforce the rules of Bitcoin.
>>>
>>> A node definitely enforces consensus rules and defines what is Bitcoin. I am quite disturbed that this is even being debated here.
>>>
>>> Zac
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210630/9f52caa5/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:> On Jun 30, 2021, at 05:45, Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Eric,
>
> > A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce that knowledge
>
> It does. Nodes disregard invalid transactions and invalid blocks as if they never existed. It is not possible for any party to transact bitcoin in a way that violates the set of rules enforced by the network of consensus-compatible nodes that we call Bitcoin.
When Fincen walks into Coinbase and every other exchange (and white market business in the country), and tells them to change a rule or they are taking the CEO out in hancuffs for money laundering, I’m pretty sure that their node with not be able to prevent it.
Enforcement is always people. We use the term node as a metaphorical term for people who use the node to avoid taking bad money. Like those machines that test paper money, they offer no resistance themselves.
A node in a closet checking transactions, unconnected to any human actually rejecting the money in trade, offers no resistance to anything. It can be forked off without any consequence whatsoever.
This subject was discussed here during the BCH split. People were setting up nodes on cloud services, to boost numbers. These non-economic nodes were of course of no consequence, which was not a matter of debate. I’m explaining to you why that is.
The network ignores non-economic nodes as if they never existed.
> Zac
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:03 PM Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
>> A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce that knowledge.
>>
>> An economic node is a person who refuses to accept invalid money. A node only informs this decision, it cannot enforce it. That’s up to people.
>>
>> And clearly if one is not actually accepting bitcoin for anything at the time, he is not enforcing anything.
>>
>> The idea of a non-economic node is well established, nothing new here.
>>
>> e
>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2021, at 04:33, Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> > A node (software) doesn’t enforce anything. Merchants enforce consensus rules
>>>
>>> … by running a node which they believe to enforce the rules of Bitcoin.
>>>
>>> A node definitely enforces consensus rules and defines what is Bitcoin. I am quite disturbed that this is even being debated here.
>>>
>>> Zac
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210630/9f52caa5/attachment.html>;