So it's obvious the original vision of every node a miner is impossible at this point, ...
If we're going to speak about "original vision", let's be clear:
...While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...
...
Quote from: satoshi
...At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.htmlnetwork grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.
I think people have gotten very confused over the past couple years about exactly what properties are necessary for bitcoin (or an alt, if that's your thing) to be global peer-to-peer electronic cash. If you agree with the "original vision", then it's clear that strict decentralization ("one cpu, one vote", etc) is not part of that vision. What's necessary is for the system to exhibit enough decentralization to prevent censorship of transactions. That might be << 100 big nodes in practice if they have sufficiently competing interests. We don't really know what the number is, but let's just be clear on exactly what properties are actually necessary and possible.
