even if you are right about the game theory, why give miners that opportunity?
Fair question. Before proceeding to it let's have a comparison between the role of game theory and full nodes (supposedly millions of them) in securing bitcoin:
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:
- Short-range chain rewrite attacks are not detectable by full nodes, they just bend the knee to the more difficult chain, forget about resisting against such attacks.
- Long-range attacks are the same as it is just a relative concept.
- Full nodes can't resist censorship/blacklisting attacks against peoples/institutions/nations.
- Full nodes can resist against protocol breach and most importantly double-spending/illegal-inflation attempts very well.
If the transactions, and blocks are not valid. It won't be relayed by nodes. That's what I know. Try to disporve that.
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 failed in 2011-2012 after
pooling pressure falw showed its power and pools started to dominate the mining scene of bitcoin. Since then we are running plan B: Centralized mining, no home miner, less full nodes AND game theory.
Then the more we are required to verify things for ourselves.
Plus if you truly believe that your one node network will be adversarially safe from a collusion by a cartel of miners, because "game-theory", and that users shouldn't run nodes, then what are we in Bitcoin for? Let's remove POW too, and make it cheaper for them.