user119822: Is bitcoin really safe from control and drastic rule changes? For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote to modify it.
They say 26 billionaires own as much as world's 50% poorest. Overtime, resources will reallocate and billionaires can assume control of wealth.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report
So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.
Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.

user5406: 
For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote
to modify it.

There is no voting, no Bitcoin user can be forced to accept protocol rules they don't agree with: their nodes enforce the rules locally on their own machine. At best, an attacker with a majority of the hashrate can enforce stricter rules than what is already allowed by the current consensus rules. The attacker would achieve this by ignoring any block that doesn't adhere to rules they want to impose and build a longer chain without the block.
Allowing things that are forbidden by the established consensus rules would require the whole ecosystem (or at least the vast majority) to upgrade to the new, more lenient rules by updating the software they run locally. Otherwise, a block that breaks the consensus rules would simply be ignored by all unupdated network participants. Such a rule update is generally referred to as "hardfork" and tends to be met with skepticism. Just being rich doesn't provide any special power to force other users to install new node software, as such, it is unclear how the scenario described would be feasible.

user85: 
So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.

No. Bitcoin works exclusively by agreement. Everyone else in the world can make a change and I can choose not to make that change.

Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.

But that's a huge disadvantage for gold for two reasons:

If a huge amount of new gold is suddenly discovered, there's nothing that can be done to keep the new gold from being equivalent to the old gold, even though none of the holders of the old gold want that. Sometimes you need to make changes to preserve the same behavior because the world is changing.

If the properties of gold aren't perfect for using it as a store of value (and they're not) you just have to live it.


If what you want is a store of value and a means of exchange, gold's intrinsic value is pure downside. You have to pay full value for it when you buy it, so it doesn't add any extra value from holding. And if the intrinsic value changes, say due to new industrial uses for gold or old industrial uses being replaced, that harms its usefulness as a means of exchange and store of value.

119822: <p>Is bitcoin really safe from control and drastic rule changes? For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote to modify it.</p>
<p>They say 26 billionaires own as much as world's 50% poorest. Overtime, resources will reallocate and billionaires can assume control of wealth.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report</a></p>
<p>So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.</p>
<p>Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.</p>
 5406: <blockquote>
<p>For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote
to modify it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no voting, no Bitcoin user can be forced to accept protocol rules they don't agree with: their nodes enforce the rules locally on their own machine. At best, an attacker with a majority of the hashrate can enforce stricter rules than what is already allowed by the current consensus rules. The attacker would achieve this by ignoring any block that doesn't adhere to rules they want to impose and build a longer chain without the block.</p>
<p>Allowing things that are forbidden by the established consensus rules would require the whole ecosystem (or at least the vast majority) to upgrade to the new, more lenient rules by updating the software they run locally. Otherwise, a block that breaks the consensus rules would simply be ignored by all unupdated network participants. Such a rule update is generally referred to as &quot;hardfork&quot; and tends to be met with skepticism. Just being rich doesn't provide any special power to force other users to install new node software, as such, it is unclear how the scenario described would be feasible.</p>
 85: <blockquote>
<p>So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. Bitcoin works exclusively by agreement. Everyone else in the world can make a change and I can choose not to make that change.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But that's a huge disadvantage for gold for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If a huge amount of new gold is suddenly discovered, there's nothing that can be done to keep the new gold from being equivalent to the old gold, even though none of the holders of the old gold want that. Sometimes you need to make changes to preserve the same behavior because the world is changing.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If the properties of gold aren't perfect for using it as a store of value (and they're not) you just have to live it.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>If what you want is a store of value and a means of exchange, gold's intrinsic value is pure downside. You have to pay full value for it when you buy it, so it doesn't add any extra value from holding. And if the intrinsic value changes, say due to new industrial uses for gold or old industrial uses being replaced, that harms its usefulness as a means of exchange and store of value.</p>
