Non-mining nodes.

So, I have been spending too much time in another sub. (I suffer from a tad of

I have a hard time getting *anyone* there, *anyone* at all, to agree with my view. So, I’d like some balanced comments, from

I am talking about the value independent nodes play in determining which hardfork has value.

Please hear me out, and tell me where I am wrong:

Let’s say 70% of miners decide to change the rules.
– Examples: Add one extra mandatory output to themselves, that doesn’t need to have a valid signature. Can be done, if they are the ones who validate the rules…
– Decides to stop validating signatures and treat Segwit as anyone-can-spend (already done on a competing coin)

Now, all else being equal, the majority chain would win. But there would be two chains, not compatible. If mining nodes were those that decided whether or not transactions was valid, it’s a given which side would win – right?

But ok. The economic part of the ecosystem is not interested in that. They’ll not perform those changes, and will still only accept coins mined by the 30% minority chain.

I am arguing that the minority chain is doomed to win in this case, unless they actually manage to fool the non-mining nodes to run that hard-fork too…and why would they?

The majority chain would of course have majority hash power, but their *market* would be reduced to an internal market equal to the miners…am I still correct?

So, only the 30% remaining honest miners coins could actually be spent, and eventually DAA would come in…and adjust difficulty so that blocks were still 6 per hour. Still correct?

How would this not reduce the 70% majority (which were obviously dishonest so hardly any external actors would give value to the coin) to more or less a miners toy they can transact with each others?

Please correct or improve on my world view.

View Reddit by vegardeView Source