Why do Nodes settle for blocks which have so many deliberately excluded transactions?
Bitcoin nodes don’t implicitly discriminate in opposition to any nodes which might be submitting new blocks and correct proof of labor options, if it’s the case that they mine the longest chain then the community will routinely settle for it (assuming the whole lot else is legitimate as nicely). So the one approach to sluggish this down is persuade miners to level their ASIC at a pool which doesn’t do such issues. Additionally a 6% censorship on one swimming pools block remains to be significantly better than ETH the place OFAC censorship is minimal 30% at any given second on any validator(and funds that are akin hashpower in PoS are locked on the validators the place in Bitcoin we’re free to maneuver to a unique pool once we really feel we’re being censored).
Is not that in opposition to the Bitcoin ethos in a way since that is akin to censorship?
I agree that giant entities like Binance censoring transactions will not be inside the ethos of Bitcoin, however neither is the rest they promote on their alternate/on line casino. So the one approach to cease such issues is get folks to cease supporting it, in any other case they’re simply taking part in Bitcoin like everybody else. I wont endorse the whole lot on this article (partially as a result of I’ve not learn the entire thing) however typically the best way to consider adversaries and Bitcoin is that “Bitcoin is cash for enemies”: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/enterprise/bitcoin-is-money-for-enemies
Do some nodes purposely try and not settle for these miners blockchain?
You can’t actually do such a factor with out making a hardfork when you can’t create an extended chain by the point their chain propagates, which typically is completed routinely and wouldn’t be one thing you might do on the fly.