Quote from: TheQuin on February 03, 2018, 07:37:17 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on February 03, 2018, 07:27:45 AM

+2 of no arguments.

Others have already shredded your arguments so I have no need to add anything.

None ever has. The only counter "arguments" fall in two classes:

- "he must be a FUDDER of the other camp", "he must have an agenda" or something similar
- he's wrong, because he's wrong. (include in this, too: others already said he was wrong)

No technical taking apart of any aspect has ever been presented that wasn't obviously logically wrong in itself, like "look how well the UASF menace worked".

But, in its most succinct form, my argument is what Satoshi writes on page 3 of his paper, and comes down to what I already said:

"if consensus were to be established by node count (IP number count), it would be easily sybilled. This is why node count shouldn't matter, and why consensus should only be based upon proof of work voting, not on number of nodes voting". So whether Joe's node in his basement "votes against a block chain", and whether even a large majority of online nodes vote against that block chain, shouldn't have any influence on the construction of that block chain (the consensus). Bitcoin was designed that way. And if that's true, Joe's node, nor his majority of peers, don't keep anything "in check", and certainly not the miners voting over the next consensus.