So many reputations and projects in blockchain rest on this flawed idea that users need to run nodes. Users do nothing to extend the chain! If a group of miners wants to change the protocol, it takes another group of miners to counter it. And there always will be another group, because miners compete. From the bitcoin whitepaper: "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules". And let's get serious: users will hear about such a protocol war on news outlets, not by watching their node. Then they can choose which fork to buy, sell, and use.
Funny how this is now the only activity for this: buy and sell forks in a vacuum.
Because in actual real world scenarios users definitely don't chose that. Just go into a shop and watch people not chosing anything, but, you know, just paying.
Even granting that, it's still not user nodes that matter. We've seen from history (BCH/BSV/BCHA) that applications and exchanges decide which fork gets the ticker.
It was the other way around. Several exchanges publicly went all-in on various Bitcoin forks, only to turn around on them when all users and economic activity stayed with "regular" Bitcoin.
Many prominent people predicted the mainline Bitcoin chain dead when so many important exchanges and custodians promised to change the consensus rules. In retrospect it may sound like empty threats, it doesn't make much business sense to go up against economic activity, but at the time it was considered a real threat.
> So many reputations and projects in blockchain rest on this flawed idea that users need to run nodes.
BSV obviates the idea completely.
Any mistake the miners make, is forever.
Without this, miners could increase the money supply by indefinitely postponing the block reward.
> "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules"
> If a group of miners wants to change the protocol, it takes another group of miners to counter it.
No one is going to mine on a chain that produces worthless coins users don't accept. Users forced miners to activate Segwit in 2017, and almost all hashpower is still with Bitcoin.
Honestly, you don't know this. Users != nodes. A single individual could have spun up tons of nodes to vote for Segwit. Given the stakes and how manipulated social media was at the time, I consider this what likely happened. This is also what proof of work solves.
and almost all hashpower is still with Bitcoin.
Everyone knows the game by now. Whoever keeps the ticker keeps the hashpower. We saw this with BCH/BSV and also BCH/BCHA. Because most users don't follow these details. It doesn't mean users won.
