Quote from: Meuh6879 on March 19, 2017, 11:31:38 PM

Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.

Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).

The large block miners will not require small block nodes to propagate their solved blocks. Small block nodes will be routed around. Node operators can choose to follow the operational chain that is processing the bulk of transactions, or they can choose to follow the essentially non-operational chain which is nearly stalled. Nodes have that right, and they have that ability. Other than that, non-mining nodes are powerless.

Quote from: Meuh6879 on March 19, 2017, 11:47:42 PM

They "find" block and ask to the majority if it's a valid block.
For a valid Block, they must wait 100 confirmations of the majority.

Miners do not ask anyone if the block they have mined is valid.

How are those confirmations made? By miners mining additional blocks on top of them. Non-mining nodes have nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Torque on March 20, 2017, 12:25:17 AM

Another problem is, what if the colluding miners become corrupt, and block size has been increased so much that no one can take control back, or at least compete? What if the corrupt miners then start deciding what functionality is and isn't acceptable in a release, to the dismay of the user base, exchanges and merchants? What if peer review and testing gets cast aside, and the software gets backdoored and full of holes/bugs with each release?

Then users will abandon what Bitcoin has become, the price will drop asymptotically toward zero, and the miners will be left with row after row of rack after rack of hasher after hasher suddenly worth zero, having lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Nakamoto consensus. It's A Thing.

Quote from: r0ach on March 20, 2017, 01:19:49 AM

Adam, you need to tell these fools if they're going to fork to skip BU entirely and do just a plain 4MB fork with 8MB possibly to be activated at a future date like a few years from now.

That would have been a defensible position 18 months ago, but that particular ship has long since sailed.

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 20, 2017, 01:27:31 AM

Quote from: jbreher on March 20, 2017, 01:13:21 AM

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 10:22:24 PM

If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.

As long as there is no force barring you from firing up a node of your own, your criteria of access to trustlessness is satisfied. If you are unwilling to spend the rather negligible amount of money required to do so, that is not a fault of the system.

That's the exact opposite tune you guys are singing on user fees? Hypocrite much?

Not at all. I have consistently advocated this viewpoint. Lie much? Perhaps inadvertently, but a lie nonetheless.