<p>Although miners do have a lot of influence, it's not a miner only thing. You can voice your opinion by running a node that is in alignment with your views on the matter. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-04T22:18:43.943Z
Can you explain what it would mean for a node to be "in alignment with your views", and how this would affect what the node actually does?  For instance, are you saying that if someone opposes larger blocks, they could run a node that will not relay blocks above the current limit?
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-05T00:07:58.103Z
Perhaps I was assuming the question was asking about core, unlimited, or classic and running one versus the other based on it's blocksize rules.
m1xolyd1an
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-05T21:28:07.573Z
@NateEldredge: If you're opposed to all blocksize increases, you could run Core 0.13.0, in which SegWit is inactive.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-04T21:57:22.113Z
2016-12-04T21:57:22.113Z
m1xolyd1an
<p>Ultimately, the consensus rules are set by (the consensus of) those running full nodes, and not by miners. If all Bitcoin node operators decided to switch to different rules for whatever reason, miners have no choice but following, or see their blocks become worthless.</p>

<p>Because of that, in the extreme, miners have no say at all. They have to produce blocks that satisfy the rules that full nodes demand.</p>

<p>Of course, in practice, the hard part is how to get consensus among full nodes, and this is a public debate in which many parties participate: developers, users, and miners. All of them have an incentive to form a consensus, because the alternative may be an irreconcilable fork (with two independent currencies, where each coin that existed before the split can be spent once on each side - the exact problem that Bitcoin was designed to solve).</p>

<p>While a single user can't just demand a change (or non-change) of rules, a large collection of economically relevant nodes certainly can.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-04T23:24:31.333Z
2016-12-04T23:24:31.333Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>Lately I see a lot of back and forth between proponents and opponents of block size increase debate. I have made up my mind about this, but neither side provides any directions on how I can indicate what I think about that.</p>

<p>Is this a miner-only thing?</p>

<block-size-increase>
Is the block size limit miners'-only thing, or should users participate?
Arsen Zahray
# Is the block size limit miners'-only thing, or should users participate?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-12-04)

Lately I see a lot of back and forth between proponents and opponents of block size increase debate. I have made up my mind about this, but neither side provides any directions on how I can indicate what I think about that.

Is this a miner-only thing?

**Tags:** block-size-increase


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-12-04. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

Ultimately, the consensus rules are set by (the consensus of) those running full nodes, and not by miners. If all Bitcoin node operators decided to switch to different rules for whatever reason, miners have no choice but following, or see their blocks become worthless.

Because of that, in the extreme, miners have no say at all. They have to produce blocks that satisfy the rules that full nodes demand.

Of course, in practice, the hard part is how to get consensus among full nodes, and this is a public debate in which many parties participate: developers, users, and miners. All of them have an incentive to form a consensus, because the alternative may be an irreconcilable fork (with two independent currencies, where each coin that existed before the split can be spent once on each side - the exact problem that Bitcoin was designed to solve).

While a single user can't just demand a change (or non-change) of rules, a large collection of economically relevant nodes certainly can.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-12-04. Score: 1

Although miners do have a lot of influence, it's not a miner only thing. You can voice your opinion by running a node that is in alignment with your views on the matter.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Can you explain what it would mean for a node to be "in alignment with your views", and how this would affect what the node actually does?  For instance, are you saying that if someone opposes larger blocks, they could run a node that will not relay blocks above the current limit?  
> **username_1**: Perhaps I was assuming the question was asking about core, unlimited, or classic and running one versus the other based on it's blocksize rules.  
> **username_3**: @NateEldredge: If you're opposed to all blocksize increases, you could run Core 0.13.0, in which SegWit is inactive.  

---

