-ck's response.. close eyes, put fingers in ears and just scream go with segwit.
(facepalm)
Jonald's response:
I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.
Are you telling me you support the latter?
no, i think jonald is FLAWED to the Nth degree in his understanding of what nodes do. i have face palmed him many times. and corrected him also.
but someone personal beliefs of why they should or should not run a full node is not as big a deal as the empty promises/guarantee's/expectations of segwit which is more of a network wide issue
people should learn about what would truly benefit/hinder the bitcoin ecosystem and what would actually occur due to certain changes, proposals
here is a copy of a PM i sent to jonald as soon as i read this topic
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
(facepalm)
your taking quotes of (not verbatim) 'some people just want to balance check their own funds which is ludicrous to get those people to run a full node..'
but erroneously trying to twist it into sounding like NO ONE should run a full node and just let pools have full control.
(facepalm)
EG
"As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger."
(facepalm)
your literally saying that relying on pools to be the sole holders of the full data is good
your literally saying that relying on pools to be the sole verifiers of the full data is good
(like a fiat bank) just so that users can balance check...
but that would be making bitcoin insecure and centralised.
(facepalm)
1. pools collate the data, yes. but it needs independent verifiers to accept it in that format as valid. merchants and people that care about security do this and should continue to do this. they do and should continue to reject/orphan blocks that cause issues and make pools follow the rules or find themselves unable to spend rewards.
2. yes some people that dont care and only want to check their balance can just run SPV/lite clients. but that does not mean we should only let pools be the only verifiers of the data.
lets reword your words. maybe that would help you understand:
non-mining full nodes make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) because there would be a problem if a majority of pools were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be broken.
..
in short to explain what non mining nodes do:
if a pool offers a new block that does not contain the last accepted block hash (previous hash). and/or does not meet the standards of the node rules(funky tx's, creating funds from nowhere, fraud, etc), then that pool get their block orphaned. once pools realise their blocks are getting orphaned, thus cant spend their rewards with merchants/people. the pools would fall inline and only make acceptable blocks.
removing that power from merchants/people is BAD.
nodes play an important role. and should continue.
you should have stuck with the argument of not everyone needs to be their own bank,.. but not push it into being a plea to centralise pools into being more authoritarian by suggesting merchants and those that do care, should just let pools do all the work.
.. but it seems lately you have jumped over to the other side wanting centralisation by only accepting the one dimensional twisted scripts as gospel.
)
