Bitcoin Forum

Hey guys,

i was pretty sure that validating nodes give us some kind of security even if they don't mine.
But now i got into a lot of discusssions with these BCH/SV guys and not 100% anymore :D How does a full node prevennt double spending, its accepting the longest chain no matter what no ?
What else are they validating. Does a node operator has to do manual auditing of blocks to confirm no double spend happened?

so what is true or wrong about this article from this Faketoshi Craig ?

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-myth-of-the-full-validation-node-d7db52748649

pls not (only) hate, give me some answers i can learn from to understand it better.

Cheers  ;D

full nodes cannot prevent a double-spend attack because double-spend attacks are 100% compatible with the protocol. it's one of the weaknesses of proof of work consensus. our nodes verify that miners are building on the chain with most cumulative work. that chain could be one where miners just committed a double-spend attack.

this is supposed to be mitigated by providing mining incentive---inflation and fees provide miners with compensation for honest mining. committing double-spend attacks costs money and carries risk of failure.


they are validating every transactions and block against the consensus rules---bitcoin's rules. one of the most sacred rules is the 21M cap on supply. so for example, a full node would reject any block that pays more than 21 million bitcoins in an output---that would be an obvious attempt to break the rules by over-inflating the supply.


non-mining full nodes do not actively affect the consensus (they do not mine blocks) but they passively affect the consensus by forcing miners to act honestly. to use the earlier example, if miners tried to fork the protocol to inflate the supply beyond 21M coins, SPV (non-validating) nodes would follow miners and would have no idea about the theft that was occurring. fully validating nodes would reject any such fork, which prevents miners from attempting it. if miners tried, they would waste money mining an invalid chain which would be rejected by a network of full nodes.

mining nodes validate the transactions they receive, and collate them into blocks. they then create an identifier of the collated block, and send that to a bunch of ASIC machines which then make a more secured, harder to break identifier for the block.

the block with this strong identifier is sent out to the network.
the network then validate it all and if all is good, the network(non mining nodes) retain that block and also relay it on.
if a node (mining or not) was to send a bad block to another node it would get rejected

the nodes that retain the block(a good honest list of blocks that all meet the rules.) would if all nodes done the same find that all their identifiers match, making it easier and non-controversial for new blocks to be added on. as new blocks also contain identifiers of the previous block. thus making a chain of blocks that continually grow, because everyones list of blocks match

the symbiosis:
mining nodes validate and collate data into blocks. but non mining nodes validate and retain good list of blocks.
if blocks are bad then a miner will find their block is not in the list, and as such merchants/exchanges/shops/services wont see their block and thus the miners cant spend the rewards with said merchant.

its not a non mining vs mining node debate many should concern themselves about. because they are both symbiotic and rely on each other.
mining nodes make the blocks. non-mining nodes view whats in a block to know funds have moved/spent/spendable

the real debate is about merchant/service nodes(non mining) being more important than home user nodes(non mining), on the bases that:
miners dont really spend funds to home users. so miners dont care to send blocks to home users
merchant nodes usually have business rated internet and NEED to monitor/view hundreds of payments a day.
home users only care about 1-2 a day, and usually only have home rated internet

thus home users requirement to:
validate thousands of tx a block is not personally something they NEED
retain thousands of tx a block is not personally something they NEED
and with home rated internet. if they did set node connections to 10-100 would find the bandwidth used to be a seed for others is not something that is a benefit to anyone on the sending or receiving side

imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 100 nodes connected.. thats 0.05mb per node (sending ~1.2mb 100x)
imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 2 nodes.. thats 2.5mb per node(sending 1.2mb 2x)

the second option is better for home user as the block is sent in seconds to just 2 users meaning speedy. also its only 2.4mb total instead of 120mb total.

now imagine it from the receiver side.. imagine a merchant was connected to a home node. the merchant wont want to get data at 0.05mb speed they would prefer 2.5mb speed
so not only will the home user benefit by lowering nodes connected but also the people on the other end would benefit too
its far better that a home user only connects to 1-2 nodes for own benefit and have just enough for own NEED, and let the merchants that have a higher NEED do the higher node connected higher bandwidth/sped connections. as they NEED it more

If nodes just blindly relay, then why wouldn't they relay an invalid block?  You said it yourself, they relay blocks which conform to consensus.  Which means non-mining nodes are enforcing consensus rules.

You are free to believe the misguided notion that non-mining nodes don't matter, but you won't find much support for that kind of foolishness here.

For that very reason I was inquiring about the usage of maxconnections with low values (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109163.0). If i understand correctly, using the value 10 would give me 8 nodes to connect to while allowing 2 nodes connect to me. The default is 125 which would allow 117 people to connect to me while i connect to 8 nodes.

125 connections might be a bit too much for a poor 1mbps down 300ish kbps up link...

exactly, lower the count down and youll save alot of bandwidth, thus allowing the speed you do have to be more concentrated on those that NEED connections

and to all those that try to play the situation i explained off as some craig wright(scammer 2015+) thing..
satoshi(real bitcoin creator 2008-2010) said about issues of home users bottlenecking the network
and also core/blockstream dev Pieter Wuille did too...

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8109/how-does-one-attain-1-000-connections-like-blockchain-info/8140#8140
"Please don't change this, as there is no need. Connectable peers on the network are a scarce resource, and essential to the decentralization. If people go try connect to all of them like some sites do, we'll very quickly run out.

In case you're a merchant or miner, you perhaps want to set up a few fixed connections to trusted others (see the -addnode command line/config option), but having more connections does not mean stronger verification (the reference client always verifies everything) or even faster relaying (as you'll slow down by distributing new blocks and transactions to all your peers). It is mostly a matter of providing a service to the network"

..
so yea
by making too many un-needed connections which not only bring out the "my bandwidth usage is high costing me money" cries. but also the recievers of your data are only getting a smaller % of your speed as its diluted across too many connected nodes.

I've seen you post some manipulative bullshit before, but this is a new low.  There is a clear and obvious distinction between "don't change the default settings for your node in a way that would waste connections" and "nodes aren't needed".  

The only rational conclusions are that you are either:

a) being manipulative, or
b) you're simply too stupid to understand what Pieter Wuille is talking about  

mining nodes:
validate
collate(block create)
relay

non-mining nodes:
validate
relay

take coinbase.com. get them to turn off their non-mining nodes and you will soon realise that MINING NODES cant spend their blockrewards on coinbase.com because coinbase.com cant see or trust that a miner has value to spend.
non mining nodes do validate.
..
how ever there are some software that just relay. such as matt corrallos 'fibre' and also some lite nodes designed specifically to just relay out data unchecked independantly.
....
also.
if one mining node made block X with an error
if one mining node made block Y with without an error

with coinbase.com's NON-mining node. would validate both attempts(if both received near same time and Y has not yet been built on to be defined as a clear winner) and when when validated deem block Y the winner. and as such Block Y can happily be placed as the next block coinbase keeps. thus allowing the miner of Y to spend the block reward. where as mining node X will get forgot/rejected
....
also
because coinbase.com has a chain that includes block Y.. and other peers see that coinbase and N other peers also have Y then the consensus is that the chain containing block Y is more acceptable to everyone compared to that the one node trying endlessly to push block X. eventually the one node endlessly pushing X would get banned from being a connected node if it made too many push requests

...
also
whn the MINING nodes want to make the next block. they see many peers have chosen Y. and thus its best they build a block on Y to avoid orphan event

.. also
non-mining nodes do check with their peers what best chaintip, height and blockhash to follow and wouldnt really bother even trying to look at a chain containing X if Y has more acceptance amongst peers and also Y is ahead with other blocks now above it and the network building on further.

nope
if your full node only validates the transactions of blocks. then you need a better node.


non mining nodes are symbiotic to mining nodes.
firstly coinbase dropping its full node status and just using xplorers not only then destroys the zero trust thing.. it also makes the explorers more centralised if all merchants started trusting the explorers.

secondly its not just the block data but also the whole chain height, hashes and such it compares to peers to ensure that there is a majority in favour of one rather than another.

this is why people say having 8 diverse nodes to compare and get data. so that there is something to compare and contrast the blockheights chaintips etc. and then when it comes to how many nodes you connect to, to send data out.. well if ur a home user keep it lower, to lessen your 'bandwidth' cries

you do realise. if all 20 pools made a bad block. the network would reject them all.. and just wait for a good block..
meaning mining nodes cant spend their funds withiin the network.

mining pools can continue on building blocks ontop of their own blocks but will never get to spend them. thus mining nodes end up being honest and following the network rules to get the network to accept their blocks so that every non mining node has them and then as such the non mining nodes follow the most complete(heighest) chain they can see from their peers. they all come to a agreement. and as such mining nodes get to spend their funds.

again if you think a non mining node just tx validates. then you need a better node
again if you think a non mining node just tx stores. then you need a better node
again if you think a non mining node just tx/block relays. then you need a better node

there is a significant reason to have blockheights, chain tips, blockhashes. to ensure peers all agree on a clear majority

khaos read some code
^ wrong

little secret. learn orphan, learn reject, learn consensus, learn honest nodes, learn symbiosis, learn byzantine generals.

if you sent me a block i can reject it if it doesnt fit the rules.. i dont blindly accept it
if i see out of 8 peers that 6 are showing blockheight 600,000 and 2 are showing blockheight 599,500
im gonna grab data from the 6 nodes that are at 600,000.
and then im gonna do my own checks, my own validations and only trust the data i find that is valid
i do not just grab the data and pass it on.

seriously go read some code or get a better node if all you have is a relay/repeater node (much like fibre)

lets word it another way
mining nodes are the U.S Fed Mint.. one day they accidently put pink ink into the printers instead of green. and then send out pink bank notes.

non minting users dont just accept it. they check the note see its not green and reject it.
soon enough mining nodes realise they screwed up and certain serial number range is invalid, they orphan out that serial number pink notes and again start the serial number range using green ink

if they carried on with pink ink. shops would just wait for the green bank notes and reject pink notes. because everyone is under the understanding that only green inked notes are tender.

you are foolish if you think mining nodes can just mint what they like and users accept it.
you really need to do some research.
read code.. not reddit/twitter/medium

...
i think the context of the medium article your misunderstanding is this

in 2009-2011 a "full node" done dozens of jobs
in 2011-2012 a "full node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and things like CG miner done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "pool node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and ASIC done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "non mining node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs

the misunderstanding is that calling nodes after 2011 a full node.. is less than accurate. because no nodes do the full job list. different things work symbiotically to get the whole list complete but no single node does it all, thus the terminology of "full node" becomes vague

but that DOES NOT mean that non-mining nodes do not validate and decide. and does not mean in a 'honest node' consensus network that non-mining nodes are not part of the symbioses.

without non mining nodes to be the auditors of mining nodes. people end up having to BLINDLY trust mining nodes.
mining nodes without non-mining nodes would then be on a central rampage of doing as they please knowing merchants blindly trust mining nodes.

but the reality is bad blocks do get rejected, orphaned by user nodes and if repeat offending active rules the nodes sending out offending rulebreaking data get banned.

learn about the symbioses of consensus on a honest node network
read some code. not medium/reddit/twitter

I feel that doing an audit is very necessary, so we can find out about system errors or weaknesses, and I think that is very useful.

ive seen you manipulate and flip flop in every post you make
NODES are needed
but not everyone NEEDS to be a node(for the sake of thinking that small users are helping the network by having 100 connections, etc)

this is not me saying only miners are needed.. as there is a symbioses at play where non mining nodes are needed.
but not everyone NEEDS to be a non-mining node with loads of connections (old term 'supernode')

my mindset is even if personally you only NEED to check certain addresses. the best thing to do is not strain your internet or other nodes experience by having over 100 connections diluting/bottlenecking your internet.
drop it to a couple connections so that the receivers of your data get the best experience and least bottlenecks

try having some coffee and doing some research, runs some scenarios. actually read some code. and do less social drama crap as its just boring

you again keep pretending that non-mining nodes do not validate..
try reading some code..
CODE not reddit
CODE

anyway
and to the same respect by your words.. saying that there should be no non-mining nodes. (because you dont understand)
if there were no non-mining node validation, then that would give all the power to miners to modify rules as they deem fit. because in your scenario there is no other party to say no to miners, no other symbiotic relationship to keep miners ontrack and honest.

so its your mindset of thinking non-mining nodes dont validate. that has stuck you in th realm of thinking that non-mining nodes are not needed.

but non-mining nodes DO validate thus there is a  mining/non-mining symbiotic relationship. everyone benefits from playing fairly and being honest in that relationship.. its called consensus.

if you want a network where all that exists is miners(federal mint) and explorers(banks/atms) go play with centralised FIAT

no your going into fantasy land of there only being one mon-mining node (coinbase)..
the reality is there needs to be DIVERSE nodes that way everyone symbiotically plays fairly and all by the same rules.
(research diversity/consensus/byzantine generals theory)

EG if coinbase say no to miners(out of some social drama spite, yet the block is actually valid). but then bitstamp, bitpay, bitfinex and other say yes(the block is actually valid) then miners will spend their funds with other exchanges, and coinbase is left not getting blocks and thus not trading, thus coinbase is left out

AGAIN SYMBIOTIC relationship known as consensus.. learn it

no.. a explorer just displays data. someone just viewing said data wont know if its accurate unless they themselves validate it.
non-mining nodes validate data.
READ THE CODE!!

just seeing a list of transactions from an explorer doesnt mean its valid. who knows what rule that explorer is following. unless you have a list of rules and your checking the data you see against the rules, you will never know if what a block explorer is providing is actually valid.

again your fantasy land is that only coinbase exist.

reality is that there is more than just coinbase, if coinbase reject a block out of bias, but then dozens, hundreds of other merchants/users say yes. nodes will follow whats best
and coinbase loses out.

an economic blackmail would only be persuasive if the majority of major exchanges/merchants collectively said they want X
hmm.. like some NYA social drama.. to get people to accept sgwit1x, under some red-herring trick that if they accept x1 that 2x might be a possibility later.. all to try to get more of an adoption count for segwit1x in 2017

update your research



coinbase alone couldnt blackmail the network unless coinbase was the only merchant. (your fantasy land)
.. but the thing is.
remember 2017.. the NYA agreement that swayed people to maybe accept segwit by giving a red-herring flag of if you accept segwit1x then segwit 2x woud be an option.. just to try to get segwit1x adopted
yea NYA was a economic blackmail... segwit2x was not even a real bip. it was just a trick to get segwit1x gain adoption numbers above the 35%

yes, NYA, (big list of the major merchants) was a economic blackmail.
which, along with lukes controversial fork threat of UASF(hard pretending to be soft but the threat was hard) and other trickery of pushing opposers off the network, caused segwit1x to activate.. but doing so was by controversial means.

your flat 2 dimensional scenarios that seems to be based on a lame medium post rather than code reading and network topology understanding. is something you need to expand on.

you seem too stuck thinking non mining nods dont validate.. and the only purpose is to relay. break out of that mindset quickly by reading code and doing research. or you will just drive yourself in circles



i mention coinbase as an example of a merchant... i didnt mention others as it would take pages to list them all. so by not mentioning others does not mean they dont exist. it jsut means i was saving time writing the thousands of merchants.

but your fantasy is going weirdly into a world where only coinbase exist as a non-mining node. simply because i didnt mention others.

again if there were no nonmining nodes to actually independently verify the transactions they see, then miners wont be held to any standard as they could make what they liked
people should not just trust what they get from third party as being law.

this is why non mining nodes (merchants/users) independently verify the transactions
but because merchants are personally involved in more transactions than a home users. because they handle so many trades and can be hurt by losses by not verifying, then yes it gives them more 'clout' than home users. as the miners and home users want merchants to see valid transactions. so people can spend with them merchants.

merchants wont want to just view some third party explorer.. blindly trust it and then give people products/fiat.. because 2 seconds later the explorer could show as being hacked and what was displayed was false info.

but the same respect goes the other way. its not just miners with funds to spend. its users too. so merchants need to be just as honest or users wont use the merchants

and by there being more than one merchant merchants stay honest because if they dont then people simply dont use that merchant
.......
so non-mining nodes will want to independently check what they see. if its going to cost them lots of funds/value by not checking.
so thats what they do. they verify what they get to ensure what they see is valid, and they reject whats invalid
this ensures the miner stay honest. merchants stay honest and home users stay honest. so that they all get the same data and all happy thats its al valid and they are all on the same network able to transact between one another.
they all see the same info they all independently verified without having to trust other parties(explorers)

bitcoin is about independent control, verification and not having to trust third parties for data.

seems as though your fantasy land is in a land where you think there is only 2 nodes in existence.
you really need to learn consensus mechanism, byzantine generals theory, the network symbiosis, rejects, orphans, honest nodes. validation code in non-mining nodes

try reading code and seeing the verification that non mining nodes do.
again if you personally are just running a 'repeater' node that just receives and relays without checking. then maybe you need to realise that its you thats not part of the main layer of the network symbiosis(consensus)

try reading more code, and try reading less reddit/medium

A "full node" has lost many tasks since 2009, the most important being obviously the fact that full nodes also mined back then, see franky1 post.

However it's the best you can get for a wallet, specially in times of forks.

Also nobody is forcing anyone at gunpoint to run Core's software, anyone can start their own client, then convince people that you are better. Having massive datacenters running full clients would only make things worse for those that want to code and run their own implementations of Bitcoin.

actually a better explanation is that the definition of a full node has changed.
there was a "software" that had different "components" and different "responsibilities". one of them was the verification and  the other was mining. these two parts were separated from each other since not everyone was able to use the second part but the parts themselves are still the same.

with that said, there is no "mining nodes" versus "validating nodes". there is a validation component to this duo and a mining component. the miner doesn't validate anything while the verifying part doesn't mine anything. but they work hand in hand.   

Newbies be educated.


Wrong. Non-mining nodes fully validate. If someone sends a transaction or a block that isn't valid, in accordance to the consensus rules, it will not be relayed.

I cannot believe how widespread the misinformation about the topic is.


My node matters to me. I validate my own transactions, and I don't need to trust anyone to validate them for me.

Plus non-mining nodes prevents the network from centralizing towards the miners.


Wrong.


Never forget. UASF. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/

Hahahaha. That con-artist, serial forging, coin scammer? I will never take one look on that article. There's not enough water to wash off the dirt from my eyes. 8)

FTFY

but hey. you be ignorant to code and how the network actually works.
you continue to just read blogs.

now ask yourself.. are blogs important to network function.. or is code important to network function
hint: if you want to know how a network works, read code not blogs

FTFY

i use the term symbiotic relationship instead of 'consensus' because recent controversies that mess with consensus. due to a certain group have changed the meaning of true consensus as it was 2009-2013. so the only closest term would be symbiosis

Cut the crap.

You are blatantly trying to twist Pieter Wuille's words to imply that a developer endorses your ridiculous notion that only businesses need to run nodes.  Here's that text again:  


Just in case there was any confusion on your part (and I'm pretty sure there isn't), this text is clearly stating that nodes already on the network should not connect to a greater number of nodes than necessary.  One single node gains no additional benefit from connecting to 50 other nodes when connecting to 8 would suffice (and, in fact, connecting to 50 actually harms the network).  This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your baseless assertion that regular users don't "need" to run a node, or don't benefit from running a node (as if you were in any position to make that judgement for them), or that the network somehow doesn't benefit from additional nodes.  

You are free to express your mindset, just don't be a manipulative sack of excrement when you do.  If you misunderstood then please make that clear.  I can forgive an honest mistake.  But since you keep telling everyone you know what you're talking about and it's them who need to research, I naturally have to assume this is you being malicious.

The double spend can happen in a PoW system no matter what happens because the system is designed in such a way. Although there is a huge possibility of double spending, there is only 0.1% probability of his attack to be successful.  A transaction needs 6 confirmations to be validated and probability of all the 6 confirmations to happen simultaneously is very very low and even if it does happen then the there will be at least a difference in confirmation time in the next block and hence the block with faster confirmations will win the race and will eliminate the other chain of invalid blocks. Hence the double spend attack won't be successful.

Also, to put this entire topic into context, I'm pretty sure Khaos77 is Zin-Zang (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1777865).  I can only assume they're a plant in this thread to make franky1 appear reasonable by comparison, but they're both worthless trolls.

doomad

not everyone does NEED to be a full node. thats what SPV is for. for the folks that dont need/want to be full nodes.
not everyone does NEED to have 100 connections. infact the more connections made the more your diluting your own benefit

no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is no NEED for regular users.
no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is everyone shouldnt be a full node

here is a basic summary:

so doomad go turn your social drama brain and go play with someone else
or atleast spend more time on researching BITCOIN and lesstime with social drama

seems you dedicate more time trying to poke me then you spend learning or talking about bitcoin.
here is the simple lesson.

bitcoin is code.
code is not wrote by AI
code is wrote by devs.

so when i talk about bitcoin, code and devs. its very much ontopic for this forum.
when you want to meander and talk about me.. thats just social drama

again(from different topics). before you hit the reply button, trying to poke the bear in any topic. ask yourself.
are you going to talk about bitcoin and devs.
or
just poke at some social drama and people that have talked about devs, and bitcoin issues less than optimistically

and dont play the victim card like your the one thats receiving the social drama, because your an instigator of social drama
instead spend more time learning
or a better challenge.
for every post you have wrote in say the last 6 months containing an insult. try learning a bitcoin fact to atleast balance the ratio

You should read this, https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

Go to the topic on "forum sliding" and "inoculating the public against the truth".

I believe it's our responsibility to make the newbies more aware that there is always some socio-political attack on Bitcoin happening everyday.

I know you're not that stupid to say it such a direct fashion, because people would naturally take affront to that.  But are we supposed to take it as a coincidence that you constantly present the math to show the "bottleneck" home users create?  I see the utter contempt you show for such users.  Because they're the ones standing in the way of what you want.  It's clear you'd love to see them gone and just have businesses running full nodes so you could justify more throughput with less latency.  You would happily throw decentralisation under the bus at your earliest convenience.  No one is falling for it. 

The ideas you support have been implemented in other chains and those chains are failing to attract a sizeable userbase.  So, rather than accept the fact that no one likes your ideas, you campaign tirelessly to inflict your poison on this chain.  Even though we clearly don't want it. 

Here are just some of the topics where you blame home users for ruining your (horrific) vision of what Bitcoin "should" be:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680.msg48195853#msg48195853
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48750341#msg48750341
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107437.msg49649494#msg49649494
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48748926#msg48748926

And my personal favourite:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49730373#msg49730373

doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.
now go do something useful like some code/network research instead of your flip flop social drama

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

anyway the thing about home users is this:
their bandwidth/bottlnecking issue can easily be solved by just not being what used to be called "supernodes" (nodes with over 100 connections) to being nodes with just a few connections to give best effiecient experience for not only home user but the recipient of the data. thus reduce the "it uses too much bandwidth" cries

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
the home user bottleneck thing is more about use of speed to be efficient so that there are no cries and thus able to be an effctive node

your the one that wants home users to have bad user experience by trying to twist words. and you try to insinuate that home users should stick to high connection counts (meaning slow diluted internet speed per connection) all coz you want people to dislike the bitcoin network to persuade them to other networks

seems its you that wants home users to give up and just use LN

so just man up. find just one narrative of flip or flop and stick with it. be honest with yourself and others about your goal.
you pretend i have a campaign. and yet its obviously you that wants LN populated and bitcoin depopulated. so just man up and admit it

real funny part
i have tried to keep this and other topics on topic. and yt its th usual echo chamber tribe that meander in and turn discussions about bitcoin and the network. and turn it into poking the bear social drama of frankys said x/y/z
atleast windfury linked where he got taught his tactic and is now subtly trying to link doomad into learning how windfury does it so that doomad improves his skills of offtopic personal insult
because it has become noticable that doomad has become boring and empty of context in his attempts.

i can show you and your echo chamber of buddies many posts where your mindsets is in favour of
forking people off the network.
telling people if they dont like the centralist LN is the future solution thus deburden bitcoin, the only solution you see is those that want to keep bitcoin populated/have utility.. is telling true bitcoiners to f**k off.

and once again. dont try the flip flop wishy washy card that your a victim of social drama, when its ur cho chamber that meander topics into such by poking the bear.

now go try doing some bitcoin research and spend less time on your social drama

Lie.

Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks.  That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.  You've said on many occasions that you think we should get rid of the "wishy washy scaling factor" and just have everyone use a 4mb base weight, but you're the only one I've seen calling for that.  If users wanted what you want, they wouldn't be running the code that supports SegWit.  And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.



I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node.  Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay.  I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours.  You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.



*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*

How many users are changing the setting up, franky1?  How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion?  Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?   ::)

I'm not buying it.  You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion.  You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:  


You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing.  Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network.  It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks.  Funny coincidence, that.    ::)

typical mr flipfop
1, doomad your own words about compatibility and permissionless drivel was you saying there was no opt in.
you even admit the truth for once in another topic by saying your adoration for cores attempts to push people off the network that opposed segwit1x. BEFORE segwit1x got locked in.

so you now pretending high majority diverse people of 2015-2017 opt-in for segwit goes against your initial flipped mindset.

try to learn what narrative you want to push and stick with one narrative.

2. again your mindset is stuck in the flip flop echo chamber of rpeated thoughts of the "gigabyte blocks" myth pushed by your centralised friends.
reality is that PROGRESSIVE SCALING such as the same as what happened 2010-2015 (0.25,0.5,0.75,1mb) is not a bigger deterrant.
reality is that users can just change settings or decide if they actually need to be a full on supernode.
EG instead of connecting to 100+ connections. they can bring it down to 10 and thus make each of those 10 connections 10x better speed experience due to less speed dilution. while also for the user themselves not having to broadcast out 100x data but only 10x data. thus benefiting the user and the receiver.. win win.


LN nodes will be masternodes monitoring multiple coins so they can coinswap.
guess what. when that becomes popular. YOUR flip flop will change and suddenly you will b saying how home users are not restricted to only 1mb-2mb data.
because the reality is home users are not restricted to 1-2-4mb of data..
the actual issues home users have is that they try to go above their need by trying to connect to hundreds of nodes.

as for the stuff about LN running full nodes. even the devs admit people wont be carrying their desktops and laptops around to go shopping. so LN's design for "starbucks coffee"/groceries/pizza small purchases instantly is for the lite wallet app userbase.

its the devs and your echo chamber that keep on saying bitcoin cant handle X while other networks are the solution, yet the other networks will be dominated by third party factories/watchtowers and then users locked into them using autopiloted phone apps.

atleast try doing some research..


here you go again i, and MANY others including the real satoshi never said slow internet users dont have the right to run a node. your making that crap up about "no rights"

seriously.. go take your social game word twisting flip flops and use that time to actually learn stuff

what was said and is the general sentiment by those not in the centralist echo chamber. is that user nodes can be full nodes but not all users NEED to b full nodes connected to hundreds of others.
your echo chamber centralists have an agenda of wanting to deburden bitcoin of utility, by saying bitcoin is not fit for everyone.
my and many open minded mindsets are that bitcoin can be used by anyone, but that people can have varying levels of utility.

and if the internet speed is slow theres no NEED to try being a supernode connected to hundreds of others. as it hlps no one by going up so high. its far better to themselves and everyone to set their settings appropriately to be connected. but do so efficiently
(doomad learn the difference between no help by being up so high connection count.. vs your blurred vision thinking that it means no help whatsover to even be on the network...
thats where you got things wrong. you wrongly thought it meant no hlp to the network at all.. the reality is no bnfit to go extreme.. there is a difference.. try learning it)

lol. you do realise the quote of pieter. was from a blog, where the original poster was trying to increase his nodecount...
heres a hint. the title of that:
"How does one attain 1,000+ connections like blockchain.info?"

as for my distain for core. thats about distain for centralism and lack of diversity..
again you love centralism, so stop your flip floppy trying to insinuate that im in the same camp as you.
sorry but no. YOUR the centralist. you love core dominance. you love how users follow CORES rules.
im for DIVERSITY where there are DIFERENT BRANDS of full nodes so people have choices

(pre-empt your reply:
doomad will say, 'if you dont like cores rules f**k off to another network
ill say: 'diversity is about different brands on same network where consensus ensures core dont just be dictators/tyrants in control..
but have to be byzantine generals of a level playing field. finding a fair balance of consensus where diversity finds agreement... which is what bitcoins/blockchains original invention/innovation/lightbulb revolutionary new consept was all about)


[/quote]

insults? again lets word count your post history, vs mine for actual insults. see who actually does the real insults.
my comments about users are just following core rules is just that. core have plopped themselves at the core of the network, called themselves the core and reference client, done loads of social drama stuff to keep themselves at the center and thus now there is not really any diversity in the network

even you yourself have spoke loudly about how you would love to REKT core opposers, you admired cores actions about pushing out a few opposing bips.  

whether a node is connected to 1000 others or just 2. changes nothing in regards to tru honest consensus.
users finding a setting level that lets then be full nodes without causing their own 'bandwidth issues' cries changes nothing about their consensus level.

but again. you are just a social flip flopper who knows nothing about the bitcoin network even after i nicely asked you months to try researching it.

...........................
anyway
seems doomad cant get the hint about which way he wants to flip or flop. and will never take the time to do some independant thinking.
so lets move on
..........
summary
usernodes:mining nodes:merchants have a symbiotic relationship. they ALL validate.
however they all can choose their level of NEED.
EG if there are 1 billion humans using bitcoin. not all 1 billion NEED/WANT to be full nodes. in no way should they be forced to being full nodes with 100+ connections just so some centralist group can shout "the network cant handle it, move everyone off the network"

instead users can choose to lower their setting/involvement as they please. EG slow internet users dont need 100-1000 connections and many devs even going back as far as 2009 have said it too.

but to have a certain group echoing how bitcoin cant scale because of lame reasons that can easily be fixed by settings changes.. is not the right ploy to then promote alternative networks.

its far better to allow settings to change so that it increases utility. unlike a certain group who want users to get pushed off the network if their opinion doesnt match CORES roadmap of centralised commercial networks

it sounds like you're just confusing two different activities. obviously non-mining nodes don't play any active role in block creation. but block creation is only one part of the system. there's an entire incentive system at play where miners are forced to mine honestly. if they don't, their blocks will be ignored by the network (of non-mining nodes) and they'll have wasted money mining worthless blocks. non-mining nodes are a much, much, much bigger part of the network than mining nodes. hence their importance in enforcing the rules.


only if the drop in hash rate is so severe that difficulty never readjusts. that is the potential downfall of the network.

if difficulty adjusts, it will correct to make mining profitable again. rationally, that means people will mine bitcoin. and then non-mining nodes will keep pressuring miners to mine honestly, just like before.....

I believe some of the wrong information in the thread, and in the forum, is very deliberate. New accounts, old accounts, all spreading lies, and half-truths.

Or maybe they truly don't understand how the Bitcoin network works.

We can all learn a lot in that interview here https://badcryptopodcast.com/2019/02/20/craig-wright-242/

And "honest mining" you can only learn from reading the specs of it, the White Paper.

learn alot?
more like dismiss alot.
CW has not been involved since 2009, id say he got involved ~2011-13
CW is not a computer scientist. he admits he cant even manage a linked-in page
CW cant even write a client from scratch
he didnt flee australia due to doxxing, he fled to avoid court trouble and contacted gizmodo to doxx himself
CW doxxed himself in 2015 setting up his drama after getting into aussie tax trouble trying to use fame as a 'proof of id' ruse to use as a get out of trouble ploy

anyway CW should not even be used as a source of info as he is just playing with with an altcoin
best thing is to read and understand the code and things like how byzantine generals theory and consensus play out (before core trojan edited it)

CW is a flip flopper, like many others. he grabs satoshi quotes to pretend he is satoshi(anon-anarc-inventor-libertarian/socialist) but then CW says other things that show he is a (public-legal-capitalist)

---

ontopic
oh and by the way CW tripped.
when h talked about a block that was just over 1mb(before segwit) that got rejected. he (falsly) claimed that only miners picked up the block and rejected it.
this was not the case.

many nodes were set to get a block header/block and relay it out and then calculate values/validate signatures, compare it to block hash and all the other multiple checks and then reject it out of their node in about 2 seconds when seen as bad. which happened.

and thus when the next block comes along they can then see which block is being built on which block and if being built ontop of the rejected block, orphan off that as the child(youngest/newest) block is building on the wrong path/branch

if the seeder peer keeps sending you that same rejected block. then eventually your node would ban the node as a spammer

much like the bug found in 0.17 which if nodes never got bad blocks, then the bug found wouldnt be a issue but in a indepentant relay and validation network a block with the bug would have caused issues


what some believe(wrongly) should be the case is that pools should only talk to themselves first. and reject, before passing anything out to mattblues FIBRE initial validator node to validate and then relay it using the main FIBRE relay ring network only what mattblue deems as fine, again before the bitcoin node network, thus the main bitcoin nodes only get valid blocks

the issue with not even letting nodes have a chance to reject is that they are then become just sheep to their seeding peer which they just leach from.
which is where this topics myth is all about
the central group want it to be a central group where nodes have no independent thought/function and thats the bit where CW is talking using his capitalist-legal mind and twisting the original bitcoin decentralised independence of anarc-libertarian-socialist real function of bitcoin nodes

anyway my node got the block of just over 1mb and rejected it in 2 seconds. and would have got blocks which if created with the latest bug, would have rejected that too.

in essence. if your node has not seen a reject or a orphan when you check your log file then your node is a sheep archival node thats not part of the main relay/validation network and not the latest symbiotic function 'full node' but instead just a downstream node