Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
J. Stolfi presents an interesting view on nodes in this thread, saying that non-mining nodes are harmful and should not be encouraged. Of course he's saying that from the point of view that Bitcoin is broken, but he makes provocative points. For example:

If Biticoin is running smoothly and there is no disagreement between users, then Stolfi is right in saying that non-mining nodes do not contribute. Non-mining nodes provide verification, but if all the miners are following the same verification rules as the user base (I'm assuming 51% of the hash power is here), then the miners are providing all the verification needed.

However, non-mining nodes allow users (exchanges, merchants, individuals) the decision power of acceptance. Non-mining nodes enable users to decide for themselves which rules constitute "truth" and which branch to follow.

This is important for when there is a disagreement between miners and the larger ecosystem. Miners are free to build a longest chain according to their rules, but users are free to follow a different set of rules even if those rules are backed by a smaller set of hash power and have a shorter chain (by rejecting the rules used to validate the longer miner chain).

If a user led fork happens, then at the moment Stolfi is wrong. Non-mining nodes are the mechanism users use to decide on a different branch (i.e. a BIP101-only branch). After the user led fork was resolved and both miners and users are in agreement, then Stolfi would be right again. Non-mining nodes would not contribute much at that time. At least until another disagreement between miners and users happens again, which it will at some point.
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015

That makes sense, but I wonder: isn't a user-led fork via nodes susceptible to Sybil manipulation? I haven't thought this through carefully mind you, but I am a little reluctant to accept the idea that nodes are a check on miners, and might side with Stolfi in seeing them as an aberration. Intuitively it makes sense to me that the brokenness of having non-mining nodes is unlikely to be something to preserve, though maybe it can be salvaged through ideas like @Justus Ranvier's.

I've always imagined a user-led fork would be carried out by spinoff or fork arbing, because that is a clean and pure expression of the market. I can't see how nodes would have the same quality, at least until they can be incorporated into the market via something like Justus's proposal.
[doublepost=1450986534][/doublepost]@jonny1000 has provided a critique of BU (or maybe just a critique of the oversize block acceptance depth) here:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
I've read sipa's comment entirely, impressive work indeed.

Two things that have left a bad taste in my mouth:

sipa said:
I disagree with a need for a BIP. None of the consensus rules are intended to change.
last unintended hardfork happened precisely because of a change related to an external dependency, switching from BerkeleyDB to LevelDB.

This time we are moving from OpenSSL to libpsec256k1.

Both cases do not involve change to the consensus rules, nevertheless for a minor nitpick, namely the maximum locks allowed in a BDB database, in the former case the blockchain hardforked.

sipa said:
One thing that is planned before final release is an explanation of the test procedures and formal verification mechanisms used.
One last thing: why releasing the aforementioned document just before the release? wouldn't have been better give more time for audit to a broader audience?

edit: grammar
Last edited:


Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
I don't think it's worth a bip. Its just 1 implementations impl. Of sig verification.

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
It appears that over the last several days, the small-block orcs have retreated back to Mordor. Without Saruman's presence, they've lost their direction. Is Saruman regrouping and building strength to come back stronger than ever? Or is the fall of Mordor imminent?


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
@Peter R

Saruman is under siege trapped in his ivory tower. An army of Ents are storming Isengard, throwing big blocks. Treebeard thunders... 'Break the dam' 'Release the river'

The free market flow of transactions shatters Saruman's beliefs, leaving him powerless and lost.

A tale of Two Towers.

Merry Christmas all.


Active Member
Sep 21, 2015
Told myself I'd stay away from forums for a while, but here I am.

Still feels like we're lacking leadership. Not that great things aren't being done (like Bitcoin Unlimited) or Roger's traffic redirecting efforts to But it seems like we really need someone who is willing to be both a technical leader and a politician, who can be trusted to know what he's*** talking about and also ... actually talk to people frequently, writing blog posts, sharing thoughts on twitter, etc. Lots of the people here on the forum are candidates, but you have to communicate to the rest of us that you are committed to fighting this battle.

Gavin seems to fit the bill perfectly except that it's not clear if he wants to do this.

Balaji has clout, money, and access to possibly the world's best mining hardware (well, at least it ought to be competitive). I wish he would share his thoughts more on the governance issue.

*** with apologies to the awesome female Bitcoiners out there. A female leader stepping up to the plate for this cause would be awesome.
  • Like
Reactions: VeritasSapere


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
I don't think it's worth a bip. Its just 1 implementations impl. Of sig verification.
I didn't say that. Just wanna underline that past changes that have looked even less critical led us to an hardfork.


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
@Inca, I've been a little out of the loop w.r.t. your ideas about RBF in BU.

If you don't mind a quick rehash, what is the gist of what your BUIP will propose?


New Member
Dec 4, 2015
regarding my BU node,
in Croatia

I noticed that I am not always on the map

when I go away from the computer, I send it to "sleep" (win7 os)
after I return, my node is running, but with only 8 active connections and I am not on the map

if I restart the BU, then number of active connections goes over 8, and I can see myself on the map

just an observation,
hope this means something to someone
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Badbeat


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
Merry Christmas everyone.

Thank you to all the intellectuals around the world for making this thread so great and a haven of sanity for me.

May The Force run through this thread for many years to come. ;)