Greg Thomas
105 posts

Greg Thomas
@AussieBTCpleb
Father, dreamer, Bitcoiner.






We’re putting the call out: We’re after more members to help drive the Advancement of Bitcoin in Australia. Help us find 210 Bitcoiners.


“Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation.” — Albert Einstein







Bitcoin Core Insider Spills The Beans (Jon Atack)











🫡 To clarify. I don’t believe non-mining nodes “create” consensus in the sense of producing blocks. Miners clearly do that through proof-of-work. My point is more precise. Consensus in Bitcoin is the longest valid chain and validity is enforced by full nodes. Miners compete to extend the chain. Full nodes enforce the rules (21M cap, block validity, etc.) Hashrate decides between valid competing chains. Nodes decide what is valid. If 100% of hashrate mined a block that violated consensus rules (e.g. inflated supply), full nodes would reject it. Hashpower cannot force invalid rules onto the economic majority & this was effectively demonstrated during the SegWit2x episode in 2017. SPV wallets are useful, but they assume honest majority hashpower. Full validation removes that assumption. That distinction matters when discussing decentralisation and block size policy. So the disagreement isn’t about whether miners matter, they absolutely do. The debate is about whether Bitcoin’s ultimate rule enforcement lives primarily in hashpower or in economically significant validating nodes. That’s not technical illiteracy, it’s a different model of how Bitcoin’s governance and incentives function. It’s why Bitcoin remains decentralised with pockets of centralisation. I discussed this here: youtu.be/SrnYH4LbDLo?si…










