So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.
You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning
here.
Here's the most common definition of "analogy":
1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security
Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:
Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common:
They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
How so? Explain how non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security. Otherwise you have no basis to compare them to garlic garlands or padlocks strewn about the lawn--it's just a baseless opinion.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.
And what does this have to do with non-mining nodes? You haven't established that (see above). This isn't about garlic.
Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.
No. You typed shitloads of words, which rarely corresponds to "mount[ing] considerable evidence." This subtle distinction eludes you too, I'm sure.
It may appear to be wordy, since I make an effort to respond to every point my opponent makes. You, on the other hand, respond to precisely zero of the arguments your opponent makes. Then you complain that your opponent uses too many words, as if that was sufficient to refute his arguments.
In other words, you're just talking shit, as usual.
...
And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support
Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you?
Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote
It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?
In that case, you disagree with the majority of Core supporters, who feel that one node = one "economic agent" (whateverthefuck that means) & thus nodes become a voice of the "economic majority" (whateverthefuck
that means).
One node
is one agent in the network. Could you explain how it isn't? That doesn't mean that one user = one node.
Sources for the latter claim? If anything, I see Core supporters arguing against this "economic majority" idea because it suggests that actors that are completely external to the protocol should have some voice in governing it. But in my view, there is only hash-based proof-of-work (hashpower) and validation of that proof-of-work (nodes).
As far as reading the white paper, I did. Number of times non-mining-non-wallet nodes mentioned: 0 (zero).
And what about the constant mention of nodes? Satoshi may have envisioned typical users being able to mine with CPUs, but that doesn't mean that "node" is defined as some arbitrary "unit of hashpower." (Is each CPU worth 4.86 terahashes/second, maybe? More? Less?
)
What do you think "CPU" in "one-CPU-one-vote" refers to? It necessarily refers to
nodes. Nothing suggests that one
must be "a miner" to operate a node.
Indeed, the whitepaper suggests that validating nodes -- not "hashpower" -- are responsible for establishing the validity of blocks:
To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced, and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.
