> 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.
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.