Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to bitcoin?
by
aliashraf
on 12/04/2020, 07:24:56 UTC
Full nodes have no power to mitigate the real attacks a hypothetical 51% collided pools can carry out, no matter how many of them are present:
.. I think you are ignoring the fact that full nodes run by normal users are essentially what make bitcoin collapse/ takeover resistant.
It is not a fact, just a false assertion. Bitcoin is resistant to collapse/takeover because of the game theory behind the scene.

There is no party named "full nodes coalition" or something, established to keep bitcoin safe and secure. As a single user, I don't care about anything other than my own security and I won't pay a penny to keep you or "the community" secure.

If there are no full nodes, then won't the network stop existing in case of a takeover of centralized pools/ miners?  On the other hand, user run full nodes with a geographic diversification the world over, serviced by different ISPs etc. can keep running under even such conditions. Its a worst case scenario which needs full nodes plus home miners.

That is also the original peer-to-peer network and it can survive no matter what; but only if the block chain rules continue to allow full nodes to run.
Home miners plus full nodes is not a backup plan for D-day, it is the original plan which is failed since 1911 after pooling pressure showe its power. Now we are running plan B: Centralized mining, no home miner, less full nodes AND game theory.