Posted on

The Centralization Vortex: The State of Bitcoin Mining in 2025

Bitcoin, our favorite form of money and the self-proclaimed king of decentralization, is teetering on the edge of a hypocritical abyss. As we sit here in late August 2025, the network’s mining ecosystem—once a symbol of distributed power—has morphed into a oligarchic stronghold dominated by a duo of behemoths: Foundry USA and AntPool. Together, these two pools command over 51% of the global hashrate, a concentration that flirts dangerously with the infamous 51% attack threshold. This isn’t just a statistical quirk; it’s a spicy cocktail of economic incentives, technological evolution, and payout models gone wild, with Full Pay-Per-Share (FPPS) as the intoxicating ingredient fueling the rise of proxy pools and eroding parts of Bitcoin’s foundational ethos. Drawing from the latest data and analyses, this article dissects the current state of mining centralization, unmasks the shadowy world of proxy pools, and reveals why FPPS has become the seductive force driving this troubling consolidation.

A Snapshot of Mining Centralization in 2025

At the time of writing this in August 2025, Bitcoin’s mining landscape looks less like a vibrant, decentralized frontier and more like a corporate boardroom. According to recent analyses, Foundry USA and AntPool alone control between 50% and 55% of the network’s total hashrate, with Foundry often leading at around 30-35% and AntPool close behind at 20-25%. This duo’s dominance marks only the second time in Bitcoin’s history that such a level of concentration has occurred—the first being in 2014, just before a massive market crash that wiped out over 80% of BTC’s value. The top five pools, including ViaBTC, F2Pool, and Binance Pool, now hoard upwards of 80-85% of the hashrate, a sharp escalation from the more balanced distribution seen in the early 2020s, where we all hoped more miners in more countries would automatically mean more decentralization.

This centralization isn’t abstract; it’s a tangible threat to Bitcoin’s security and integrity. A 51% attack, while economically suicidal for the attackers (as it would tank BTC’s price and their own holdings), remains theoretically feasible. In such a scenario, attackers could censor transactions, double-spend coins, and even rewrite recent blockchain history, shattering the illusion of immutability. This sparks discussions about how this concentration undermines Bitcoin’s censorship resistance, with some warning that regulatory pressures—especially in the U.S., where Foundry is based—could force pools to comply with government demands, like blacklisting certain addresses.

Geopolitical shifts exacerbate the issue. China’s 2021 mining ban scattered operations globally, but instead of fostering decentralization, it led to re-concentration in the U.S. and Kazakhstan. U.S.-based Foundry, backed by Digital Currency Group, has surged ahead, while AntPool, tied to Chinese hardware giant Bitmain, maintains its grip through international proxies. Environmental and regulatory pressures, including ESG mandates and energy costs, have pushed smaller miners out, funneling hashrate toward industrial-scale operations. The 2024 halving slashed the block reward to 3.125 BTC, making profitability razor-thin for independents and amplifying the appeal of large pools. Whispers of AI integration into mining infrastructure add another layer of spice, as miners repurpose rigs for dual-use in AI computations, further consolidating power among tech-savvy giants.

Yet, the real devil is in the details—or rather, the obfuscation. Enter proxy pools, the stealthy mechanisms that make this centralization even more insidious than it appears.

Proxy Pools: The Illusion of Diversity in a Consolidated Empire

Proxy pools are the smoke and mirrors of Bitcoin mining, creating a facade of decentralization while channeling power to a few overlords. At their core, proxy pools are smaller, seemingly independent operations that outsource critical functions—like block template creation and transaction selection—to a larger “parent” pool, often AntPool. Miners connect to the proxy pool, which then relays jobs from the parent, allowing the proxy to brand blocks with its own coinbase tag (e.g., “/Binance/”) while the underlying control remains centralized.

How do we know this is happening? Blockchain forensics reveal the truth. By examining merkle roots—the cryptographic fingerprints of transaction sets in blocks—analysts have identified that pools like Binance Pool, Poolin, and ViaBTC frequently use templates identical to AntPool’s, indicating proxy relationships. This setup inflates the perceived number of independent pools; in reality, “AntPool & friends” could control closer to 60% of the hashrate when proxies are factored in.

The motivations are purely pragmatic. Operating a full-fledged pool requires massive infrastructure: servers, security protocols, and a hefty Bitcoin treasury to weather payout volatility. Smaller pools, lacking these resources, are practically forced to partner with giants like AntPool to ensure stability for their users, which would move away in an instant if they would not. In exchange, they cede control over block templates to the node of the „parent pool“ meaning the parent pool decides which transactions get prioritized—potentially enabling subtle censorship without overt malice. This proxy model isn’t new; it echoes earlier concerns with pools like GHash.io in 2014, but in 2025, it’s amplified by the dominance of FPPS, turning proxies into the default survival strategy for underdogs.

Critics on X are vocal: one post likens it to “two entities that at the push of a button could censor transactions,” highlighting how proxies obscure true power dynamics and heighten risks like coordinated attacks or regulatory capture. While no major exploits have occurred, the mere possibility spices up the narrative, questioning whether Bitcoin’s decentralization is more myth than reality.



Don’t trust, verify:

https://theminermag.com/news/2023-12-28/bitcoin-mining-pool-block-reward-antpool-hashrate

https://b10c.me/blog/015-bitcoin-mining-centralization/

FPPS: The Alluring Payout Model Fueling the Fire

At the heart of this centralization maelstrom lies Full Pay-Per-Share (FPPS), the payout scheme that’s become the industry darling—and its Achilles’ heel. FPPS evolved from simpler models like Pay-Per-Share (PPS) to offer miners the holy grail: predictable income in a wildly volatile game.

Here’s how FPPS works: Miners submit “shares”—proofs of computational work—to the pool. In return, they’re paid a fixed rate per share based on the pool’s expected earnings, including both the block subsidy (3.125 BTC) and an averaged slice of transaction fees from the past 24 hours. Unlike Pay-Per-Last-N-Shares (PPLNS), where payouts hinge on actual block finds and introduce luck-based variance, FPPS guarantees steady cash flow. It’s like a salary versus commission: miners love the reliability, especially post-halving when margins are squeezed.

But this stability comes with a spicy twist—it shifts massive risk onto pool operators. To honor payouts during “unlucky” streaks (when blocks are scarce), pools need deep reserves, often in the millions of BTC equivalents. Most small pools can’t stomach this because a single dry spell could bankrupt them. Enter the proxy model: by linking to a giant like AntPool, smaller pools access shared treasuries and infrastructure, offering FPPS without the solo risk. In essence, FPPS creates a barrier to entry that favors scale, pushing independents into subservient roles.

Why does FPPS dominate? Miners crave predictability amid soaring energy costs and ASIC prices. Large pools like Foundry can afford FPPS’s demands, attracting more hashrate and creating a virtuous (or vicious) cycle: bigger pools find blocks more reliably, stabilizing their FPPS averages and outcompeting smaller ones. This leads to higher overall energy consumption and an “arms race” among pools, further entrenching centralization. FPPS pools effectively act as “large solo miners” hiring hashers, with opaque internal processes that could hide biases in transaction selection.

The drawbacks? Higher fees (1-3%) for the pool’s insurance role, and miners miss out on fee spikes (e.g., during Ordinals booms). More critically, it erodes trust: miners must rely on the pool’s honesty, contradicting Bitcoin’s “don’t trust, verify” mantra.

The Broader Ramifications and a Glimmer of Hope

This FPPS-driven, proxy-fueled centralization isn’t just technical jargon—it’s a existential spice bomb for Bitcoin. It amplifies vulnerabilities to attacks, regulatory meddling, and even geopolitical tensions, like U.S.-China mining rivalries. Community voices on X decry it as a betrayal: “Bitcoin isn’t censorship resistant,” one laments, pointing to how two pools could flip the switch on freedom.

Yet, innovation stirs. Non-custodial pools like Ocean allow miners direct control over rewards, bypassing traditional centralization and Datum allows them to use their nodes to create their own blocktemplates. Fixed upfront payouts, an FPPS evolution, let miners lock in BTC-denominated rates, reducing volatility without full pool dependency. Stratum V2 is to be released (hopefully) and diversified mining hardware is emerging, aiming to democratize access and make home mining accessible for everyone.

Bitcoin’s mining centralization currently is a fiery paradox: FPPS’s promise of stability has birthed proxy pools and oligarchic control, challenging the network resilience. Miners, developers, and hodlers must confront this head-on—lest the decentralized dream dissolve into a centralized nightmare. Hyperbole? Not at all.

You may not like it, but this is the current state of things. Now more than ever, it’s important for each of us to explore home mining with excess energy, be it from solar power or other sources, as well as reusing the heat generated by mining which can turn the main part of the expense into a sunken cost.

Every hash matters! The clock is ticking. We have one shot at this.


Check out our home miners

Posted on

A Guide to UTXO Management

Have you ever tried to pay for something with a jar full of loose change? It’s cumbersome, right? Well, managing your Bitcoin can feel a bit like that if you don’t understand UTXOs – Unspent Transaction Outputs. Let’s dive into the interesting but sometimes daunting world of UTXO management, where we’ll explore how to keep your Bitcoin transactions as smooth as a well-oiled machine. Shall we?

What’s a UTXO, Anyway?

Imagine every Bitcoin transaction as a checkbook entry. When you receive Bitcoin, you get a new “check” – this is your UTXO. When you spend Bitcoin, you’re not actually spending from one big pool; you’re spending these individual checks. Each UTXO represents a specific amount of Bitcoin that hasn’t been spent yet which you hold the private keys to.

For instance, if you receive 0.05 BTC, you get one UTXO. Spend 0.04 BTC, and your wallet will break that into one UTXO for the recipient (0.04 BTC) and one for you (the change output of 0.01 BTC).

Why UTXO Management Matters

  • Transaction Fees: Managing UTXOs can help you save on fees. Small UTXOs can become costly to spend, especially when fees are high.
  • Privacy: Using a large UTXO can reveal how much Bitcoin you own, and reusing addresses can make your financial trail more traceable.
  • Efficiency: Too many small UTXOs can bog down your wallet, especially on hardware devices with limited memory.

General Best Practices for UTXO Management

1. Size Matters – But Not Too Much:

  • Avoid Small UTXOs: Aim for UTXOs over 0.01 BTC to ensure they’re spendable without high fee costs. Tiny UTXOs or “dust” can become unspendable if fees spike.
  • Avoid Large UTXOs: A single large UTXO can compromise privacy. It’s like showing your entire bank account with each transaction.

2. Diversify for Flexibility:

  • I know, I know, we don’t like the word diversify, but hear me out. It might be wise to keep a mix of UTXO sizes, you wouldn’t go out to drink with just a 500$ bill because you know it’s too large, you would likely prepare a few smaller bills, for the ease of use. Doing his gives you the flexibility to match transaction inputs to outputs more closely, reducing change and thus, fees.

3. Source Separation:

  • This is arguably the most important point here. Keep Bitcoin from different origins separate, especially if one source doesn’t require KYC (Know Your Customer). This helps maintain privacy by not mixing your financial footprints.

4. The Art of Consolidation:

  • When fees are low, consolidate your small UTXOs into larger ones. This reduces complexity and potential future costs. Remember, this doesn’t mean fewer addresses; it means fewer UTXOs per address. Also remember that by doing this, you reveal that you own all of these UTXOs in some cases.

5. Timing Your Transactions:

  • Use tools like mempool.space to monitor when fees are low. Timing can save you money, but don’t let opportunities slip by waiting for the perfect moment. Some of us like to gamble on lower fees, and will send all of their transaction with an as low fee as possible. Time preference is an important factor.

6. Leverage the Lightning Network for Small Transactions:

  • For daily transactions below certain amounts, the Lightning Network is your friend. Amounts depend on your LN setup, if you run your own Lightning Node you’re limited by your Channel sizes. Lightning is, cheaper, more private and doesn’t involve UTXOs directly, keeping your on-chain UTXOs for larger, less frequent transactions. There isn’t even a record of these transactions anywhere but on the Nodes which routed them.

7. Address Management:

  • Satoshi said it and I’ll say it again. Never ever reuse addresses. Each transaction should must use a new address to enhance privacy, as each address links to its UTXOs.

8. Choose Your Address Format Wisely:

  • Opt for Bech32 or Taproot addresses when possible. They’re more efficient and thus cheaper in terms of transaction size and fees. Taproot addresses are slightly more expensive to send to, but much cheaper to spend from later, if we consider ngu, switching to Taproot addresses is kind of a no brainer. They also enable hiding your on chain footprint when using multisig.

Practical Steps:

  • Regular Reviews: Periodically check your UTXOs, but don’t obsess over them. Plan your consolidations or spending based on current needs and fee environments.
  • Dust Sweeping: When fees are low, combine tiny UTXO bits into something more spendable.

Privacy vs. Efficiency:

While consolidating UTXOs can be efficient, it might reduce privacy if you’re not careful. If privacy is your top priority, consider how each consolidation might link your transactions.

Another circumstance to consider is that many of the above points will be invalidated for multisig users, as using multiple keys introduces some hinderances which we’ll briefly cover here:

UTXO Management Considerations for Multisig Users:

  • Increased Transaction Size: Multisig transactions are larger because they require more data to include multiple signatures, which can significantly increase transaction fees compared to single-signature transactions. Therefore, multisig users should be even more strategic about UTXO consolidation when fees are low.
  • UTXO Consolidation Complexity: Consolidating UTXOs in a multisig setup can be more complex due to the need for multiple signatures. This might require coordination among co-signers or using tools that automate or simplify this process where possible.
  • Privacy Concerns: Multisig setups inherently offer better privacy since multiple parties are involved, but this can be compromised if UTXOs from different multisig setups are consolidated into one address. Keep UTXOs for different multisig wallets separate to maintain privacy.
  • Planning for Long-Term Storage: Since multisig transactions are more resource-intensive, consider how you manage UTXOs for long-term storage. You might want larger UTXOs in multisig wallets to reduce the frequency of needing to create new transactions.
  • Fee Estimation: Use tools like Jameson Lopp’s fee calculator or similar services that can account for the additional data size in multisig transactions. Select “P2WSH in P2SH” for wallets like Casa Vaults to get a more accurate fee estimate.

By incorporating these considerations, multisig users should be able manage their UTXOs more effectively, balancing the need for security, privacy, and cost efficiency. Remember, Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, so careful planning and management are key to a successful UTXO strategy. If you’re not comfortable, test on testnet until you are.

At last, let’s rephrase a few takeways about our beloved UTXOs:

  • Multiple UTXOs at One Address Don’t Blend: Even if you have 10 or more UTXOs in one address, they won’t combine into one big coin. They remain separate entries on the blockchain, each with its own history. They also don’t care or even know if they are “residing” at the same address, so just avoid it because address reuse never makes sense.
  • Address Exhaustion is a Myth: You can’t run out of addresses. Each wallet can generate up to 8.6 billion addresses, so you’re free to use a new one for each transaction without worrying about depletion. You won’t be able to use them all.
  • Quantum Computing Concerns: Spending part of a UTXO from an address reveals the public key for the first time, making the remainder slightly more vulnerable to potential future quantum computing attacks. While not an immediate concern, maybe never a concern, it’s still worth brief consideration when planning for long-term Bitcoin storage.

Brrrrapping Up

Understanding and managing UTXOs isn’t just about saving a few satoshis here and there, it’s about mastering your digital wealth in a way that’s both secure and private, and there is no easy way to achieve this. As often times in bitcoin, there is not “the one” single best solution and verifying the above claims before acting is your duty as a responsible bitcoiner. DYOR, think for yourself, and consider your personal setup and circumcantes instead of blindly following tips orbest practices you found on the internet. Remember, you aren’t just managing Bitcoin, you’re optimizing your financial strategy on the blockchain. So, keep your digital piggy bank tidy, watch out for those fees, and enjoy playing with your fuck you money!

Posted on

On-Demand Manufacturing Is Revolutionary.

Calm down, you’re just melting plastic, or so we’ve been told. Here’s why we won’t and why there’s much more to it than what’s visible at first glance.

The transformative power of 3D printing extends far beyond mere technological innovation. It represents a fundamental shift in economic thinking about production, inventory, and entrepreneurship. Traditional manufacturing required massive upfront investments, complex supply chains, and significant financial risk. Entrepreneurs had to predict market demand months or even years in advance, committing substantial capital to produce inventory that might never sell.

Paradigm-shift is a strong word, and significantly overused. But with 3D printing, the above mentioned paradigm has been completely inverted. Now, businesses can operate on a just-in-time model where products are created only after a customer places an order. This approach eliminates warehouse storage costs, reduces waste, and dramatically lowers the financial barriers to entry for new businesses. An individual with a laptop and creative design skills can now compete with established manufacturers, testing product concepts with minimal financial exposure.

Rethinking Product Development in the 3D Printing Era

The days of chasing the “one big hit” product are over. Traditional entrepreneurship used to revolve around creating a single, perfect invention that would revolutionize the market. However, 3D printing has dramatically transformed this landscape, offering a more agile and cost-effective approach to product development. In the old days, developing a product entailed lots of upfront cost factors ranging from material cost, cost for potential molds, international shipping and warehousing. But now, 3D printing has created a completely new way of making stuff that makes that old model as outdated as trying to ship out a catalog to get people to your website.

Entrepreneurs used to spend months, even years, meticulously crafting a single product, believing that thorough planning would guarantee success. The reality is a very different one. About 90% of physical product businesses fail. It’s like playing a high-stakes game where the odds are stacked against you, with each iteration costing significant time and money.

It’s Time to say Goodbye to the Old Myth of Product Perfection

The real power of 3D printing lies in its flexibility. Unlike traditional manufacturing, which demands large upfront investments and often very largy minimum order quantities, 3D printing allows for:

  • Zero-cost product creation
  • On-demand manufacturing
  • Instant market testing
  • Minimal financial risk

The New Approach: Rapid Iteration and Adaptation

Successful modern entrepreneurs are leveraging 3D printing to:

  1. Create multiple product variations
  2. Quickly test market response
  3. Pivot based on customer feedback
  4. Continuously improve without significant financial burden

Real-World Success Stories

Consider brands like:

  • Ethereal Lighting: Experimenting with unique lamp designs
  • Foam Warfare Accessories: Constantly evolving Nerf gun add-ons
  • Culinary Creators: Developing innovative cookie cutter collections
  • Playful Mechanics: Designing trending fidget toy variations

The Key to Success: Embracing Continuous Innovation

Much like how tech companies A/B test website elements, entrepreneurs can now do the same with physical products. Success no longer depends on creating the perfect item first but on:

  • Willingness to experiment
  • Quick learning
  • Adaptability
  • Persistent innovation

Conclusion

3D printing has somewhat democratized product development. It’s no longer about the single, perfect invention but about creating a dynamic, responsive business model that is willing to see some products and ideas fail, to learn from these failures and evolve with market demands.

The economic implications are profound. Small creators and entrepreneurs can now experiment with niche markets, creating highly specialized products that would have been economically unfeasible under traditional manufacturing models. A designer in a small town can now create and sell custom products globally, reaching customers who were previously unreachable due to high production costs.

Moreover, this model encourages a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. By producing only what is immediately needed, 3D printing reduces industrial waste, minimizes excess inventory, and allows for more personalized, on-demand production. It transforms manufacturing from a mass-production model to a flexible, responsive ecosystem that can quickly adapt to changing consumer preferences and emerging market trends.

We are now at a point where we can produce hundreds of items per week, reliably and locally. If you have a product idea or are in the market for small scale precision manufacturing from PLA to high-strength engineering materials, contact us and experience a new form of competitive manufacturing.

Thanks for reading and have a nice day!

One row of our 3D-printers.
One row of our 3D-printers.
Posted on

Solo Mining Pools

So, you got your bitaxe or other solo miner, but what now? Well, set it up and point it to a mining pool, of course. But you might ask yourself which one to use. In this post, we recommend pools for bitcoin solo miners which are all community maintained and offer solo mining with zero fees. Including our own, self-hosted mining pool! 😀

Public Pool Stratum tcp URL: public-pool.io
Port: 21496
The original public pool, maintained by the creator of the public pool software. This pool is the most widely used and allows you to engage in solo Bitcoin mining with straightforward setup and zero fees.

Go Brrr Pool Stratum tcp URL:
Port: 3333
Our fork of the original public pool offers zero fee mining and is hosted in a high bandwith location in Germany to provide improved performance for European solo miners. We created our own version of a Bitcoin Core container to ensure ZMQ support, and our pool has been running stable with almost no downtime since August 2024.

Noderunners Pool Stratum tcp URL: pool.noderunners.network
Port: 3333
Noderunners run Miners too! This is the mining pool of our Dutch friends, the Noderunners, hosted in the Netherlands, it’s offering solo mining with zero fees. The frontend is part of their awesome community website, Noderunners.network

Ckpool Solo Stratum tcp URL: solo.ckpool.org
Port: 3333
The longest running bitcoin solo mining pool to our knowledge is from ckpooldev, block 853742 was mined via ckpool. This pool takes a flat 2% fee

Satoshi Radio Pool Stratum tcp URL: pool.satoshiradio.nl
Port: 3333
The solo pool created by our friends at Satoshi Radio NL, which are running a version of CKpool, so it might incur a 2% fee, we couldn’t find any concrete information about this on their website at the time of writing this post.

Posted on

The bullish case for Noderunners

Now that privacy is on the verge of being outlawed is the best time there has ever been to set up and run your own Bitcoin node!

This is probably going to sound like a sales pitch because it’s coming from us, but that’s really not the intention of this post. It doesn’t matter which node implementation you choose, just choose the one you want or whatever is the most convenient for you to get started with.

Run Bitcoin Core, run BitcoinKnots run start9labs, run BtcpayServer, runcitadel, umbrel or Raspiblitz. The important part is that it’s YOUR node. Think about it. We have ~18000 Bitcoin nodes online which is a laughable number when you compare it to the number of people on Nostr, Bitcoin talk and Twitter. At least three of those 18k are mine, and I suspect more people run multiple nodes, so the actual number of noderunning individuals is probably another magnitude smaller.

These Noderunners are serving the network, but much more importantly, they can verify that they get real Bitcoin when receiving UTXOs. And they can do so independently, over Tor, which means that, to this day, no one can stop them from doing so. If you don’t use your own node, you’re using someone else’s node.

With privacy services shutting down and wallet apps disappearing from appstores in certain jurisdictions, having your own money transmitter might not only come in handy, it could be the only way to transact freely if you have to.

No one knows what’s going to happen next, but don’t make the mistake to think the EU won’t follow suit. Be prepared for the moment when your favorite wallet shuts down. Practice recovery with SparrowWallet or a similarly capable wallet, (good luck finding one) which allows you to connect to a node which is behind Tor. Preferably your own, but Uncle Jim Nodes work too. Ask your friends if you can’t run your own. That’s what friends are for too, they share nodes.

At this point in time, individual Noderunners have not been targeted, because it’s hard and the effort mostly outweighs the benefits for the government, so far…

And with every node coming online, it gets harder to take Bitcoin down. Which in return strengthens each and every one of us. A critical mass of NodeRunners is an unstoppable force, we don’t claim to know when that critical mass is reached, but it’s certainly not 18000.

So, what to do now? Bust out your Raspberry Pis, RockPros, old Laptops, iMacs, Mini-PCs. whatever you have and get to work. Build a node, run it and learn how to connect to it. Do it before you need it!

But I was told only economic nodes matter!

The saying is not wrong, but it can be confusing. So, let’s define what an economic node is.

To grasp this, it’s essential to first understand the basics of how someone interacts with Bitcoin. Bitcoin essentially operates as a distributed ledger, paired with a network that manages updates and keeps all copies aligned, primarily to enable transfers of bitcoin (which are just entries in that ledger).

The main priority for anyone using Bitcoin in transactions is confirming that the funds they receive are legitimate—meaning they’ll be accepted as valid by others when spent later. If not, those funds hold no value as currency. This validation is the core function of a node: to check the authenticity of transactions.

For those checks to be accurate, a node requires a full inventory of all existing unspent coins, known as the UTXO set. When a transaction is shared across the network, the node verifies if the coins being spent are listed in this set and remain unspent. After the transaction gets included in a block, the spent coins are removed from the set, and any new ones generated are added. To assemble this UTXO set initially, the node has to process the complete history of all prior transactions stored in the blockchain.

It systematically adds newly created coins from each block and adjusts the set by removing spent outputs while incorporating fresh ones from every confirmed transaction. Without this thorough historical review, there’s no assurance that the node’s UTXO set is truly correct and valid (though future advancements, like zero-knowledge proofs, could potentially replace the need for the full blockchain history with a compact cryptographic verification that confirms a UTXO set’s accuracy up to a certain block height).

Your node works on your behalf, specifically to validate the chain of transactions leading to any coins you receive, ensuring they’re sound.

Simply put, an economic node is one that’s actively utilized in real financial transactions to verify the legitimacy of incoming funds. So even if you’re just stacking and hodling, receiving and verifying those transactions with your own node makes it an economic node.

Why does this matter so much? Why are only these types of nodes significant?

Consider what keeps Bitcoin operational: the collective adherence to identical consensus rules among participants. The reason there’s a single, cohesive Bitcoin network is that everyone enforces the same standards. When miners generate blocks, each node independently evaluates their validity and follows the chain with the greatest accumulated proof-of-work.This unity stems entirely from voluntary participation—people choosing to align with a specific rule set.

To demonstrate the importance, let’s explore three hypothetical situations where groups of nodes diverge from the standard rules (we’ll overlook the differences between soft forks and hard forks here, as they’re not central to the point). In the first case, suppose several large exchanges—such as major platforms for buying and selling—modify their consensus rules differently from the majority. These entities are where bitcoin’s fiat price is determined and where trading occurs. Nodes or transactions that don’t comply with their new rules would be unable to participate: deposits wouldn’t be recognized as valid, blocking access to those markets. Other network participants might try to organize separately, but they couldn’t replicate the economic influence of those exchanges. Unless the value of the alternative coin drops to zero, the rest of the network would likely need to adopt the changes to maintain interaction, or else the exchanges would simply reject incompatible funds.

In the second scenario, imagine a collection of smaller merchants and everyday users who handle transactions, together equaling the activity level of one major exchange. Their decision to change rules isn’t as overpowering as coordinated big players, but it still carries weight. Here, the broader network can continue using standard exchanges for pricing and most transactions. The majority would still accept conventional coins for goods or trades. However, this group represents a meaningful segment of economic flow pulling away, which exerts influence. Given the probable interconnections, with transactions flowing between this minority and the main network, it creates incentives for others to adapt—especially those with direct ties. As more participants shift due to their economic relationships, the pressure mounts on the remaining holdouts.

In the third example, consider a small cluster of nodes belonging to users with negligible or no transaction activity at all—perhaps a tiny fraction of the network’s total value.Their rule change goes unnoticed. Major businesses, exchanges, and active participants won’t be affected by losing interactions from such an insignificant group. It generates no substantial leverage or downside for anyone else.

The influence of an economic node on Bitcoin’s overall consensus scales directly with the volume of transactions tied to it or its owner. A node not used for verifying personal transactions is essentially meaningless to the network’s consensus process. It imposes no economic consequences if it deviates, making it equivalent to a fake entity in a coordinated overload attempt. There could be other motivations for running a node, like accessing raw blockchain data for studies or development, but such a node doesn’t impact the core rules. This mechanism is what protects Bitcoin from sybil attacks—where someone floods the system with fake nodes. An attacker could launch thousands of nodes with altered rules on cloud servers, but without real economic backing, the genuine bitcoin network remains unphased.

Ultimately, your node only counts if you put it to work. So, make sure to do that.