Wait what ?!

A consequence of FPPS I believe. A nice read ! https://b10c.me/observations/12-template-similarity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

That's a political discussion. No idea what Bitcoin users will agree on consensus in the future. But what is for sure is that there is no technical obligation however the pressure from big players. People may leave the chain on political pressure yes, but will there always be a cluster of maxis to defend bitcoin as money til the end ? Will they be enough ? I sure hope so.

If you want to deepdive in 51% attack. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4803116

If a group of miners choose to change consensus (e.g. raise the cap), they de facto hard fork and create a new coin. The new coin could replace Bitcoin. But why would anyone leave the original chain/consensus ? Miners could threaten to make the original chain unusable, multiplying reorgs and nuisance. The cost would be astronomical and only coordinated pools could, in theory, do this. But if they do, the individual miners would instantly redirect their hashrate to unaffected pools. The attack would fail within minutes. Institutions could choose to leave the original chain, but is it that much of a sell pressure ? Maxis would be thrilled by the redistribution. And institutions will have lost everything. The miners work for the nodes, which are the bitcoin end users. Run a node.

It's not that simple actually. The miners work for the nodes. Miners can't change consensus, full nodes are the guardians of consensus. 51% attacks can double spend, reorg, or censor transactions but inside consensus rules. So the 21 million cap is actually secured by the full node runners. This is why the OP_RETURN debate is so high stake, if spam makes having a full node too costly, full node counts drop and the consensus rules become fragile. Once again, the miners work for the nodes. As for bitcoin cap decreasing, it actually happens quite often when people lose their coins. #RunKnots

This

Yes much better 😂

Comment "YES" to his post if you're up for a soft fork on limiting OP_RETURN :

YES