Why do some people believe that only the nodes miners run matter? - page 4.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Let's not rely on whitepaper or Satoshi's idea since it was created long time ago under different condition. Things such as one-CPU-one-vote have too many obstacle to be realized even if Bitcoin only can be mined with CPU.

While it's true that "non-mining node" isn't as useful as as "mining node", "non-mining nodes" are required to verify many things such as :
1. Know which one is longest chain, it's really useful when chain-split occurred unintentionally. The example is Bitcoin-qt upgrade 0.8 in 2013.
2. Detect invalid transaction in block, since you can't detect it only from block header which SPV uses.
3. Know that other nodes/miners change their Bitcoin protocol intentionally.

But people should note that not every user should run full nodes, but user should be able to run full nodes if they want to without expensive/specialized hardware.

More info : https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/

Quote from: Syke on June 04, 2018, 05:31:56 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 04, 2018, 02:48:06 AM

All full validating nodes, mining or not, validate all the transactions and blocks in the network and check if they follow the rules, correct?

Then I assume that that my node is as good as a miner's node.

But why do some people believe that only the miners' nodes matter and are very quick to cite this?

Yes, your node is useful, but no, it is not "as good as". The blockchain really only takes a step forward when a block is created. You cannot create blocks.

Theoretically you can create blocks, but only lack the amount of PoW needed.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: mu_enrico on June 04, 2018, 05:26:25 AM

It doesn't make the network stronger. It's actually the opposite. A non-mining full node only acts as a "witness." It doesn't have the ability to put/discard transactions in the blockchain. Thus, it only delays sending transactions to the node that really matters.

Other than the mentioned point, nodes only accept transactions/blocks that follows the network rules and thus are essentially enforcers of it. If non-mining nodes doesn't exist, then everyone is assumed to be running a SPV client. SPV clients do not validate blocks and they assume that every transaction in a given block of the longest chain is valid. SPV clients connects to several nodes for this purpose. (Sybil) Attacks against are made more expensive with more nodes as a single honest node would make it extremely expensive. If there were no non-mining nodes at all, miners would have total control of the Blockchain. They can essentially work together and change the protocol rules of Bitcoin and its not what we want.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Technically, there was no such thing as a "non-mining node" when the whitepaper was written. I suspect the CPU -> GPU -> ASIC arms race evolved far more quickly than Satoshi envisaged. The original idea was that everyone running a full node would be mining and everyone else would be using SPV. But, as with seemingly all economies, we had to go and invent the "middle class". Thus, non-mining nodes came into being.

This is why some people proposed re-writing the whitepaper to make that distinction clearer. Non-mining nodes are important because mining began to centralise at too rapid a pace.

TheQuin

hero member

Activity: 2576

Merit: 882

Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2

Quote from: mu_enrico on June 04, 2018, 05:26:25 AM

From what I read arguments against non-mining full node, as follows:

It doesn't make the network stronger. It's actually the opposite. A non-mining full node only acts as a "witness." It doesn't have the ability to put/discard transactions in the blockchain. Thus, it only delays sending transactions to the node that really matters.

There's more to it than this but the basic reason people want to run their own node is trust. Your own node can validate all transactions. If you rely on other peoples nodes then you are putting trust in them to validate transactions on your behalf.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 04, 2018, 02:48:06 AM

All full validating nodes, mining or not, validate all the transactions and blocks in the network and check if they follow the rules, correct?

Then I assume that that my node is as good as a miner's node.

But why do some people believe that only the miners' nodes matter and are very quick to cite this?

Yes, your node is useful, but no, it is not "as good as". The blockchain really only takes a step forward when a block is created. You cannot create blocks.

mu_enrico

copper member

Activity: 2324

Merit: 2142

Slots Enthusiast & Expert

I have been waiting for someone to ask this question since I have the same question, and I'm just a newbie who reluctant to start a new topic.

From what I read arguments against non-mining full node, as follows:

It doesn't make the network stronger. It's actually the opposite. A non-mining full node only acts as a "witness." It doesn't have the ability to put/discard transactions in the blockchain. Thus, it only delays sending transactions to the node that really matters.

Parties who against the non-mining full node often cite Satoshi's mail "Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. 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."

I really hope Bitcoin guru here can give me some lesson.

Source:
https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-are-a-terrible-idea-ad3c49f7a7b6
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

All full validating nodes, mining or not, validate all the transactions and blocks in the network and check if they follow the rules, correct?

Then I assume that that my node is as good as a miner's node.

But why do some people believe that only the miners' nodes matter and are very quick to cite this?

Is there a technicality in how the whitepaper is written?

Plus if the miners create the block and their nodes do the only validations that matter then what's the point?

Topic: Why do some people believe that only the nodes miners run matter? - page 4. (Read 4742 times)