I suggest you use Coinbase sometime, sending and receiving automatically gives you a link to a block explorer so you can monitor the transactions. Anyone with any sense always verify the block explorer transaction matches theirs.
Because users do have to have an final arbiter in transaction disputes, and the block explorers are that arbiter.
The fact that you're using Coinbase pretty much means that your privacy is already compromised. You don't need a block explorer if they're not concerned about transactions that doesn't involve them.Because users do have to have an final arbiter in transaction disputes, and the block explorers are that arbiter.
Even if you do, then I can't fathom why using Tor isn't an option. If you are able to search each addresses individually with different Tor routing, then there isn't an issue right?
Exactly and their is no incentive for me to use my money and resources to give them a free node.
You're picking at one of the least significant issues out there. The node count is fairly high, even if you only count listening nodes. Why should nodes be compensated? You're running a node and the benefits lies primarily on the user using it, the positive externality is small if you consider the number of nodes out there right now. By having to pay the thousands of nodes something, you're either making Bitcoin more expensive or Bitcoin to be less secure. What 'little' code update do you propose?
Bitcoin devs won't do it because they have their own agenda of forcing users offchain.
However
Adding Master Nodes to BTC PoW design,
or
Converting to PoS
either would get a payment for node operators
The we could quit the nonsense of artificially limiting bitcoin onchain performance,
but as I said, bitcoin devs have their own agenda that conflicts with that.
Kind of makes you wonder, Bitcoin Devs always saying how important it is to run a non-mining Bitcoin node,
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.
but they don't even consider it worth enough to funnel .00000001% of the bitcoin rewards to them.
One little code update is all it would take and they have more non-mining nodes than they could handle.
Have you ever considered that money doesn't grow on trees?
I completely understand the decision not to make the network pay full nodes because the users are doing nothing besides pressing a run button. It's almost like starting a miner on your computer and steadily earn pennies.
The node is doing all the verification work not the humans running it. And a node is just a piece of software, do you really think it makes sense for people (who otherwise do nothing) to get paid for something a piece of software is doing?
There is value in paying pennies to captcha workers or mechanical turk workers but the economic model is you gotta do work somehow to earn money.
Exactly , I don't work for free, and you are saying running a bitcoin node is not worth paying anyone to run.
Bitcoin where the miners get rich & the Devs get rich , and the node operators work for free.
* Note a Node operator pays for the energy and hardware and bandwidth and the time to maintain the node. *
* Giving that away is an IQ failure on the part of the node operator.*
* It is a provided service and as such deserves compensation.*
Or does the community want to admit that running a non-mining node holds zero value for the bitcoin network,
because they can't have it both ways,
either running a non-mining bitcoin node is valuable to the network and deserves payment
or
running a non-mining bitcoin node is worthless to the network and does not deserve any compensation.
So which is it?
