Quote from: Lauda on May 10, 2017, 10:43:45 PM

Quote from: jbreher on May 10, 2017, 10:03:11 PM

In reality, non-mining nodes are irrelevant.

Absolute nonsense. This is sounding more like government agency talk. I thought you were a BU shill, what changed?

Hunh? I was never a BU shill, though I have been a consistent BU supporter. What is the relevance?

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.

Quote from: Lauda on May 10, 2017, 10:43:45 PM

The miners do not, and have never been in, control of the network.

So you know better than Satoshi?

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto - 'The Whitepaper'

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Hmmm... yeah.... I guess miners have always been in control of the network, after all.