Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin is NOT Changed by Proof Of Node

You might have heard about BIP-110; here’s why this fork is not just bad for Bitcoin, but it is built on a misunderstanding of what a Bitcoin node is and what it is good for. As well as why, because of this misunderstanding, BIP-110 will fail. 

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

BIP-110 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal titled as a Reduced Data Temporary Softfork. The BIP proposes a consensus change to Bitcoin, which attempts to limit the types and amounts of arbitrary data that can be added to consensus-valid transactions by limiting a wide range of Bitcoin’s scripting capabilities. BIP-110 is led by a pseudonymous developer known as Dathon Ohm and is widely supported by the Knots community, an alternative implementation of Bitcoin led by one of Bitcoin Core’s earliest contributors, Luke Dashjr and its supporters.

The BIP-110 consensus change is headed towards a mandatory signaling period in the coming weeks and thus a potential fork with the main consensus rules as implemented in Bitcoin Core. The proposal needs to gain a great deal of support from miners within the coming weeks to change Bitcoin consensus. As of the time of writing, miner signaling for BIP-110 stands at less than one percent. 

The Knots community, widely made up of Bitcoiners running nodes on machines like Start9 and Umbrel, has rallied around Knots in protest of a series of development decisions made by Bitcoin Core, the primary open source development community and reference implementation of Bitcoin. While a majority of senior Bitcoin developers are either opposed or apathetic to the changes proposed by BIP-110, the movement has gained enough steam to become an ongoing topic of discussion on social media. 

Supporters of BIP-110 believe that by running Bitcoin full nodes that signal for the consensus change, they alone can change Bitcoin. Here are the main concepts being debated, the biggest misconceptions about Bitcoin consensus, what a Bitcoin node is, and why BIP-110 is almost certain to fail. 

The Power and Limits of a Bitcoin Node

Many of the disagreements and misconceptions in this recent cultural conflict within Bitcoin revolve around the idea of a Bitcoin full node. Influencers like Knut Svanholm, author and podcaster, have elevated the role of the full node to heights perhaps too close to the sun. 

Knut recently tweeted: “Every person on Earth is a node in the Bitcoin network. Most to a minuscule extent, of course, but every node is first and foremost a person, not a machine. Which tools we use to interact with the network (and, by extension, to which extent they influence the network) is entirely dependent on the choices we make.”

Statements of this sort are poetically beautiful, philosophically grand, romantic even, but nevertheless technically incoherent and fundamentally meaningless. Knut’s tweet attempts to redefine what a ‘Bitcoin node’ means and fails at it, instead diluting the value of the term entirely. He might as well have said that every atom in the universe is a Bitcoin node, since apparently to him the term is all-encompassing. 

Knut,  though well-intentioned, is wrong. A Bitcoin node is something very specific. It is a full copy of all of Bitcoin’s transaction history, block headers and transaction-related data. Its purpose is very specific: to let users verify the integrity of Bitcoin’s supply and transaction history in relation to Bitcoin’s consensus rules. 

Bitcoin nodes grant users a variety of benefits, such as privacy. Third-party wallet providers query their copy of the Bitcoin blockchain for the user’s balance and serve it back to the user via the wallet app. Most mobile wallets function this way, with users asking a third-party server for their balances. Some, very few, can connect to a user-run Bitcoin node, in which case the user’s public addresses and balances are not shared with any third-party wallet company. 

Another benefit Bitcoin nodes grant users is the ability to check whether they are in consensus with the rest of the network, staying in sync. If the user mines Bitcoin or contributes any significant amount of hashing power to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work network, the node also provides the opportunity to assemble a block, choosing which transactions go into it. This is only possible if the user manages to mine a Bitcoin block, which is quite an achievement today, given the difficulty and steep competition. 

Even new kinds of mining pools like Ocean, which attempt to decentralize block template production, letting retail miners have more influence over which transactions enter the chain, still need enough hashing power to win the proof-of-work race, resulting in sporadic blocks being mined and thus limited influence over the blockchain. 

Bitcoin nodes also relay transactions across the network, with tens of thousands of them communicating via a flood network; this results in a censorship-resistant system where a small number of nodes can get controversial transactions to miners, bypassing any kind of filters, as demonstrated by Peter Todd’s relay libre. Thus, Bitcoin nodes can not easily filter which transactions enter the blockchain.

Even a large majority of Bitcoin nodes alone cannot alone change Bitcoin consensus. Not without having a large amount of economic activity entering the Bitcoin network through them, as exchanges do on behalf of millions of users. Not without having the protocol and application developer community behind them. Not without having the investor community behind them. Bitcoin is not a node democracy, contrary to popular memes today. 

Bitcoin nodes do not grant you ‘citizenship’ in the ‘Bitcoin nation’. Satoshi Nakamoto was quite clear about this in the Bitcoin white paper. Bitcoin’s ultimate security and governance structure is: one CPU cycle, one vote, not one node, one vote. And miners, who run the CPU cycles over Bitcoin’s proof-of-work, are very sensitive to investor sentiment and the broader developer community, resulting in a distributed global protocol for money that is very difficult to change. 

Bitcoin nodes ultimately let you know if you are connected to the network with the most accumulated proof-of-work and that its consensus rules are being followed, but a node alone does not let you change the consensus rules. Users who change the consensus rules of their Bitcoin node are, by definition, no longer running Bitcoin. As a result, changing Bitcoin consensus as a node runner is very difficult, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is money for enemies. 

History and Bitcoin Consensus Games

Deep work has been done, trying to understand Bitcoin consensus, its various pillars and interest groups. Ren Crypto Fish, Steve Lee and Lyn Alden identified six of them in BCAP, an open-source effort to analyze Bitcoin consensus and risks in protocol upgrades. BCAP identified stakeholders such as Economic Nodes, Investors, Media Influencers, Miners and Protocol Developers, and Users and Application Developers

Historically, in the case of a consensus crisis, it is true that Bitcoin nodes have been used to signal support for one version of Bitcoin over another. Fork events like 2017’s Bitcoin Cash fork are often cited as examples of economic nodes winning against opposition by miners. 2017’s legendary User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) faced major opposition in theory; a large majority of mining pools and their corresponding collective hashrate supported the Segwit2x version of Bitcoin, with many exchanges and corporations having signed the infamous New York Agreement in support of it. 

The Bitcoin node-supported soft fork against it won nonetheless, bluffing the Segwit2x version from a contested blockchain altogether. But that’s the thing: while the Bitcoin nodes technically won, they did so by having massive support from protocol developers, investors and media influencers: these nodes really had economic weight and rough consensus. BIP-110, on the other hand, does not have the protocol developers, nor does it have enough investors behind it. Michael Saylor has come out against it, with many industry leaders also openly opposing it or staying out of the matter entirely. 

In fact, during the Bitcoin Cash fork, the limits of retail Bitcoin nodes were clearly understood. A Bitcoin node run by an exchange is orders of magnitude more influential than that of a retail user, as it introduces large amounts of new transactions into the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin node of a major mining pool is far more influential than that of a hobbyist solo miner, as it more often assembles blocks and chooses which transactions settle to the blockchain. 

Most Bitcoiners outside of exchanges use mobile wallets to access their Bitcoin. Such users and investors can ‘vote’ with their money, so to speak, by moving their bitcoins and economic activity elsewhere, be it to a wallet that supports their vision of Bitcoin, or their own full node. But while users remain on mobile wallets that talk to third-party nodes, those users have little individual influence over Bitcoin consensus. And the vast majority of mobile wallets are using a Bitcoin core-compatible back end. 

The same goes for exchanges; their users effectively delegate consensus decisions to the exchange operators. In some cases, exchanges have put consensus issues to a user vote, weighed by their total holdings, returning that decision to end users weighed by capital; we may see this happen again with BIP-110. 

Votes of the sort have started happening with Foundry today. One of the biggest Bitcoin mining pools in the world, Foundry, recently emailed its miners informing them that they can vote on the proposal with their hashrate. A high enough support could result in Foundry signaling for BIP-110, though that remains unlikely. Users who do not vote will effectively signal against BIP-110, defending the status quo. Thus apathy about the topic of BIP-110 would be a win for Bitcoin Core by default. BIP-110 supporters need to culturally win over a majority of the Foundry hash rate, who then must act to vote against the Bitcoin Core developer consensus, the most popular Bitcoin implementation and best supported codebase.

Today, miners are not signaling support for BIP-110 in any significant way. In fact, according to some data, this is one of the least supported soft fork attempts by miner signaling in Bitcoin’s history. Less than one percent of the blocks mined in the current difficulty adjustment period are signaling for BIP110. 

Concluding Thoughts

BIP-110 has so far failed to gain consensus across major interest groups within Bitcoin; neither developers, investors, miners, nor large economic nodes support the consensus change. The result is likely to be a chain split in the coming weeks, which could have significant consequences for lightning wallets running on BIP-110-compliant nodes, ultimately resulting in a new, yet small blockchain that would probably have to change the proof-of-work used to stay alive. 

This post Bitcoin is NOT Changed by Proof Of Node first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

In theory, work is a simple exchange. You provide value, and you are compensated for it.

But in practice, the moment an employee brings up salary, the tone often shifts.

The conversation becomes uncomfortable. The body language changes. Sometimes the silence itself feels heavier than the words.

And in many workplaces, talking about money doesn’t feel like a professional discussion.

It feels like breaking an unspoken rule.

Almost like doing something “wrong.”

But why does something so logical feel so emotionally loaded?

The Unspoken Rule: “Don’t Talk About Money”

Most companies never officially say it.

But employees learn it anyway.

Through subtle signals like:

• “We’ll discuss compensation later” (which never comes)
• Awkward reactions during negotiation
• Colleagues avoiding salary conversations
• Performance reviews that dance around numbers

Over time, employees internalize a belief:

Money is not a discussion topic. It’s something you receive, not negotiate.

This creates a silent culture where salary becomes emotionally sensitive instead of professionally rational.

Why It Feels “Illegal” Emotionally

The feeling of doing something wrong when asking for a raise is not random.

It comes from three deep psychological and cultural layers:

1. Power Imbalance

Managers control budgets. Employees don’t.

So when an employee asks for more money, it can feel like:

• Challenging authority
• Questioning a decision-maker
• Disrupting hierarchy

Even when it’s not true, the structure creates emotional pressure.

2. Fear of Rejection

Asking for a raise is also asking for evaluation.

And evaluation feels personal.

Employees often think:

• “What if they say I’m not worth it?”
• “What if I sound greedy?”
• “What if this affects my job security?”

So the request doesn’t feel like negotiation.

It feels like a risk.

3. Cultural Conditioning

Many workplaces still operate on outdated beliefs like:

• “Good employees don’t ask, they get noticed”
• “Loyalty should be rewarded automatically”
• “Talking about money is unprofessional”

These ideas quietly train employees to stay silent.

So when someone finally speaks up, it feels like breaking a rule that was never written — but deeply enforced.

The Corporate Contradiction

Here is the irony:

Companies expect employees to:

• Negotiate deals
• Defend pricing
• Justify business value
• Push for growth

But when employees apply the same logic to their own value, it suddenly becomes “uncomfortable.”

This creates a contradiction:

It is professional to negotiate for the company’s money, but emotional to negotiate for your own.

The Reality: Salary Is Not a Favor System

One of the biggest misconceptions in workplace culture is this:

Salary increases are rewards for loyalty.

In reality, salary is closer to:

• Market value
• Skill demand
• Business impact
• Timing and negotiation

If you don’t discuss it, it doesn’t automatically adjust itself.

Silence does not lead to fairness. It often leads to stagnation.

Why Companies Benefit From This Silence

Even unintentionally, silence around money benefits organizations.

Because:

• Fewer employees negotiate = lower overall payroll pressure
• Less transparency = less comparison
• Less discomfort = fewer disruptions in hierarchy

This doesn’t mean companies are “wrong.”

It just means the system naturally discourages open financial conversations.

How This Changes When You Reframe It

The shift happens when employees stop viewing salary talks as emotional requests and start viewing them as professional alignment discussions.

Instead of:

“Can I get a raise?”

It becomes:

“Here is the value I am contributing, and here is how my compensation aligns with it.”

This small reframing changes everything:

• From emotional → logical
• From personal → professional
• From asking → aligning

The Core Truth

Talking about money at work feels “illegal” only because it has been culturally treated as sensitive for too long.

But in reality:

• It is not disrespectful
• It is not greedy
• It is not unprofessional

It is a normal part of career growth.

The real issue is not that employees ask for more.

It is that many workplaces are still uncomfortable having an honest conversation about value and compensation.

Final Thought

A healthy workplace doesn’t avoid money conversations.

It normalizes them.

Because when people can openly discuss value, expectations, and compensation without fear, work stops being confusing — and starts becoming fair.

If you want, I can also convert this into:

• A LinkedIn carousel post
• A shorter viral version (under 200 words)
• Or a punchy hook + thread format for engagement growth

it should be under 1000 words

Here is a refined version under 1000 words (clean, LinkedIn-ready, and structured):

Why Talking About Money at Work Still Feels “Illegal” in Many Companies

In an ideal world, work is simple.

You provide value. The company compensates you fairly. And salary discussions are just a normal part of professional life.

But in reality, the moment an employee brings up money, something changes.

The tone shifts. The energy becomes uncomfortable. Words get softer. Sometimes the conversation gets delayed altogether.

And for many employees, asking for a salary increment doesn’t feel like a professional discussion.

It feels like doing something wrong.

Almost like breaking an unspoken rule.

But why does something so logical feel so emotionally heavy?

The Invisible Rule: Don’t Talk About Money

Most companies never explicitly say that employees should not talk about salary.

But the culture teaches it anyway.

Through signals like:

• “We’ll revisit compensation later” (which rarely happens)
• Avoidance of salary discussions in reviews
• Discomfort when employees bring up pay
• Colleagues not sharing compensation openly

Over time, employees learn something silently:

Money is not something you discuss. It is something you wait for.

This creates a workplace environment where salary becomes emotionally sensitive instead of professionally normal.

Why It Feels Like You’re Doing Something Wrong

The discomfort around asking for a raise is not imaginary. It comes from deep psychological and structural factors.

1. Power Imbalance

In most organizations, salary decisions are controlled by managers and leadership.

So when an employee asks for a raise, it can feel like:

• Challenging authority
• Questioning a decision
• Stepping outside their role

Even when the conversation is valid, the hierarchy creates emotional pressure.

2. Fear of Judgment

Salary discussions are deeply personal.

When you ask for more money, you are indirectly asking:

“Am I worth more than I am currently being paid?”

That triggers fear:

• What if they say no?
• What if they think I am greedy?
• What if it affects how I am perceived?

So instead of a professional negotiation, it feels like personal evaluation.

3. Cultural Conditioning

Many workplaces still operate with outdated beliefs such as:

• Good employees don’t ask, they are rewarded automatically
• Talking about money is unprofessional
• Loyalty will naturally be recognized

These ideas train employees to stay silent.

So when someone finally speaks up, it feels uncomfortable — even wrong.

The Corporate Contradiction

Here is the irony.

Employees are expected to:

• Negotiate deals
• Justify pricing
• Communicate value clearly
• Push for better outcomes

But when they apply the same logic to their own compensation, it becomes sensitive or uncomfortable.

So we end up with a contradiction:

Negotiating value for the company is professional. Negotiating value for yourself feels personal.

The Real Nature of Salary

One of the biggest misconceptions is that salary increases are emotional rewards for loyalty or hard work alone.

In reality, compensation is influenced by:

• Market demand for your skills
• Business impact and contribution
• Timing and company budgets
• Negotiation and communication

If you don’t discuss it, it doesn’t automatically adjust itself.

Silence does not create fairness. It often creates stagnation.

Why Silence Benefits Organizations (Even If Unintentionally)

Most companies are not actively trying to suppress salary conversations.

But silence naturally benefits them in several ways:

• Fewer negotiations mean controlled compensation costs
• Less transparency reduces internal comparison pressure
• Avoiding difficult conversations maintains hierarchy comfort

This doesn’t make companies unfair by default.

It simply means the system is not designed to encourage open financial discussions.

Reframing the Conversation

The shift happens when employees stop seeing salary discussions as emotional requests and start seeing them as professional alignment.

Instead of:

“Can I get a raise?”

It becomes:

“Here is the value I am contributing, and here is how my compensation aligns with that value.”

This reframing changes everything:

• From emotional → logical
• From asking → aligning
• From personal fear → professional clarity

The Core Truth

Talking about money at work feels “illegal” only because it has been culturally treated as uncomfortable for too long.

But in reality:

• It is not disrespectful
• It is not unprofessional
• It is not greed

It is a normal part of professional growth.

The problem is not that employees ask for more.

The problem is that many workplaces still haven’t normalized honest conversations about value.

Final Thought

Healthy workplaces don’t avoid money conversations.

They normalize them.

Because when compensation, expectations, and value are discussed openly, work becomes clearer, fairer, and far more transparent.

And maybe the real shift we need is simple:

Not to stop asking for more.

But to stop treating the conversation like it should be hidden in the first place.

---

Why Talking About Money at Work Still Feels “Illegal” in Many Companies was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.