Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...
The distribution is just a model, that doesn't hold in real world as it gives full trust.
We have small , slow players and a few big ones. What is about now?
