I don't think that's true either. I don't agree with your root cause analysis or your bogeyman selection. it became normalized to tell transactions directly to miners when blocks first started being full. this is what opened up the can of worms with nonstandard-but-valid transactions becoming more common than they were before. if you still want to blame core for something, you can blame them for this.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
You do you.
Also
AlsoI 💜 Bitcoin Knots.
So, who secures Bitcoin?!
If securing Bitcoin requires consensus on what Bitcoin is, and Bitcoin is a database of values assigned to keys, and Bitcoin has a protocol for reassignment of keys, then securing Bitcoin can only be done by … your node!
Nodes! Nodes! Nodes!
In the end, YOU secure Bitcoin, but the only time that matters is when you agree with someone else on what Bitcoin is, and the only way that you can express yourself to others is via your node.
You can try to abstract this and say that hodlers of last resort secure it, or that you can express yourself by buying or selling, but the only way you can actually communicate yourself is via enforcement of the protocol.
What about Miners?
Miners are suppliers of blocks, nothing more. Nodes demand consensus-compatible blocks as a vessel for key reassignment. Miners’ ability to influence the protocol is limited to the wiggle room within the protocol’s magic numbers.
from
https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/who-secures-bitcoin-95b19bbcda3c
View quoted note →