Hello Matthew, could you please give a bit of info on how in 2017 - 500 #noderunners ran #bip148 please and forced the miners (and the rest of the network to comply - and accept Segwit)? Is there a source for this info? I am surprised that such a low number has such a huge influence on the protocol level eventually.

Hello Matthew, could you please give a bit of info on how in 2017 - 500 #noderunners ran #bip148 please and forced the miners (and the rest of the network to comply - and accept Segwit)? Is there a source for this info? I am surprised that such a low number has such a huge influence on the protocol level eventually.

Excellent site. He does a fantastic job of illustrating the spam attacks on multiple dimensions. Proof of work at its best. Ivan Pustogarov in 2015 explained that running bitcoin over tor introduces risk to the network. It is true that you don't have to open port 8333 on your router with tor, but depending on another node network for uptime (only 8,000 to 10,000 tor relays worldwide) gives me some pause on weighing privacy pros and cons. However, with rising spam (and potentially illegal content) on the network, clearnet may pose an even greater risk in the future. Not spreading FUD on network configuration or anything, just objectively analyzing the security and privacy tradeoffs. Your node, your rules. Your keys, your coins.

@42efa0a6…90559fc5 shares valuable Bitcoin data and knowledge. The objective data and truth exposes the lies of spam excusers and the gaslighting of compromised Core devs.