dinofelis is looking at things from a 2 dimensional view. he is not understanding all the features of bitcoin and what makes bitcoin so different than a fiat cheque clearing house.

bitcoin is unique for many more reasons than dinofelis seems to realise. and it seems all he wants to do is convince people to run lite wallets to hand pools more power by diluting the node count that can obstruct pools from changing the rules soo easily.(sorry if my critical mind things thats his motives, where it could just b he has yet to really fall down the bitcoin rabbit hole)

nodes do provide a crucial and critical part ofthe symbiotic relationship way more than dinofelis ieither wants to admit to, or yet to grasp.
but if he wants to run a lite wallet he should just go ahead and run a lite wallet.. but those of us that understand the real need/reasons for running a node will continue to

i feel that dinofelis is still stuck in the mindset of the fiat world of central control. and is still learning but not yet grasped ALL of the beauty of ALL of the bitcoin features that differentiate it from fiat archaic systems

lets say there are atleast a dozen different mechanisms of bitcoin.
i feel dinfelis only understands 4 out of 12... and is only brushing against understanding another 1or2 (from reading his post history).. id give him another year of actually running simulations and learning the context of it.. before he see's the mindblowing wonder of why bitcoin is better than fiat.

i feel he has not yet had that mind blowing experience.. but it will come

you DO have a say
nodes are consensus.

read my examples i added
you as a non manufacturer only want yellow ducks, will refuse to accept green ducks. thus any manufacturer making green ducks is wasting its time.
yes it may have factories sky high filled with green ducks but if all the bathroom merchants and customers only want to buy yellow ducks.. the factory worker making green ducks is wasting its time.

its then the factory worker(pool) who then has to either make yellow ducks and get paid like everyone else. or.. resign and make his own factory and try and get some customers to buy his green ducks in a separate new market(altcoin).

ill repeat your own words
and again

pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone)
that decides what is acceptable.

if nodes reject blocks, that pool cannot spend the reward in that block 16 hours later, because that block is trashed..
yea that block may exist in that pools list.. but not in the list of merchants and users who will have a different list, which due to the consensus/orphan mechanism ensures a united single chain of good rule following blocks.

a pool can make THOUSANDS of blocks and store them locally on their own system and build on them on thir own system, but if nodes are rejecting them then its just wasting the pools times making something only itself can see that no one else holds and as such that pool cannot spend.

pools learn very quickly unless there is little to no risk of rejection/orphaning, they wont change the rules.

even if pools are told they have been given the vote power. pools still watch the node network to see the risks of making a block
they can wave their ass/hat/flag all they like about preference. but they wont actually make a funky block unless the orphan risk was negligible

EG
even with the 1mb rule, pools in 2009 preferred to only make blocks under 250kb because of many factors, in 2013 there was a big event that caused pools to not want to make blocks over 500kb

pools wont do things if nodes are going to have trouble with the change.

EG
imagine you work in a factory making them yellow plastic bathroom ducks.. you decide "hmm today im gonna make green ducks"
you spend all day making thousands of green ducks, knowing you fellow employee's are making yellow ducks. and when you show your end of day produce, non of your bosses or the companies customers want green ducks. so you have just been told yo didnt meet your quata, you wont get paid.
you soon learn its far easier to just make yellow ducks

by suggesting people should stop running nodes is the cheapest way to get pools more control.. because telling non-mining nodes to shut down CREATES this situation

however by non-mining nodes continuing to run their nodes causes

---

non-mining and mining nodes have a symbiotic relationship

---

you dont need to run 200,000 nodes.. its much easier to get 200,000 merchants/people to run 1 node each.

or more realistically if there are 20~ pool nodes.. have over 6000 non mining nodes

lets kill 2 birds with one stone
1. blockstream wantis the network to split to give blockstream dominance
2. non blockstream implementations refusing to split.. wanting to keep the diverse implementations on an level/even playingfield

(gmaxwell is a founder and CTO of blockstream and also the lead dev of core and also the main moderator of technical discussions)

but in his own words

they dont
they find a solution in an average of 10 minutes..

SEPARATELY

their solution is only accepted every 10th time, due to the competition

being accepted as part of the chain.. is different than how long it takes them to make a solution.

learn the context

you argue it takes hours, and you knitpick my simplifying of "a few seconds" difference (facepalm)
the few seconds difference is in regards to your scenarios of all pools having equal hash..
you mention 10 pools of 10% hash.. so times would be similar...

yes if you add in other variables and change your scenario the times become more than just a few seconds.. but still not going to be hours like you suggest.

seriously go run some tests.. get some dice.. get you and some friends to run a few lengths of a field
make an alt and buy a few usb asics and run some proper tests
make an bitcoin testnet and buy a few usb asics and run some proper tests

ethereums split was not "sudden" it was intentional..
(avoid reddit/twitter as a research source as thats just propaganda.. try looking for real sources (hint: "--oppose-dao-fork" may help you weed through the fake fud)
its what has been called a bilateral split.. again it was intentional, via avoiding the consensus security mechanisms and literally banning nodes of opposition to make an altcoin INTENTIONALLY

ok if your a core devotee.. here is your lord and masters own words explaining both ethereums intentional split AND showing that those who are not blockstream endorsed do not want a split in bitcoin.. while also revealing that cores CTO reall wants the split (3birds one stone)


by the way.
a hardfork is not by default a bilateral split. by default with high consensus, only a small minority simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules.

by default with moderate consensus, a more moderate amount simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules

but there then becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.
the surprising things is that even going soft there becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.

he only gets a block every one sixth, because there is other competitors that beat him by seconds. and only the fastest guy wins..
as soon as the winner is found the clock resets.. blocks are found in 10 minute average. they do not continue hashing the same data for hours..
they reset and start again on fresh data as soon as a winner is found

i do understand, much more then you think

my maths are only simplified not due to not understanding, but just to try getting to the point in a way even a layman can understand easily.
i use layman analogies to tone DOWN technicals into average guy speak. however it seems you try to grasp things at a laymen and try to abstract it into technical babble, while still missing the main points

yes there are more variables, but my posts only explain parts of them because the parts i mention are trying to show where your parts fall flat and it would end up taking a whole book to explain how the other parts interplay aswell..(which then just sidetracks the point)

you some how think there are only like 2 mechanisms of bitcoin and that non-mining nodes play no part in any security, bar being a data backup.

there are over a dozen mechanisms that all interplay each other. where nodes and pools have a symbiotic relationship not just for data backup, but for security purposes and data validation, collation and formation.

bitcoins symbiotic relationship, the fastest first, the orphan consensus, the propagation, the relay the tx validation, the block validation, and all the others all have a part to play.

you keep thinking that its only a pool is master.. node is slave game. where if a pool only gets a block every 6th block its average solution must take 60 minutes to find.. is RIDICULOUS

your maths of statistics has not looked at the context of where the numbers come from, nor (it seems) have you run scenarios either using algorithms, or paper or dice or just your mind.

the short and curlies of the part you try to suggest is that if there were 20 pools of say 5% (where the average pool only gets 1 block every 20th block) in your eyes means a pool only finds a block every 3 hours 20 minutes..(wrong on so many levels of understanding the context of numbers)

when the reality is they find block solutions much faster, but are IGNORED/GIVE UP as soon as a winner is found. and they all start again.. the hashtime does not add up on the next round. it starts at 0 again.
just look at the times of orphans where a runner up actually does get to win because the fastest first cheated or done something wrong, or other unmentioned reasons
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
not hours apart

much like olympic runners, having to run 100m..
just because linford christie or usain bolt win the majority of races, does NOT mean it takes 20 years for someone else to run 100m because they only win every 4th Olympic game

please look deeper at the numbers and look at the context of the stats.

lol your reading too much reddit
seems you are already reading the scripts of the doomsday FUD buzzwords


so far other nodes brands lik BU have only dropped at most 420ish
 on march 17th CORE dropped 560 nodes in on go.


also core is not perfect
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug
and thats just the bugs they want to reveal. they also have a policy to not publicly divulge certain bugs for atleast a month after a fix
as commented here
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

all in all nothing is perfect. and even microsoft with thousands of devs has bugs
linux has bugs, even web browsers have bugs.

i would just choose which ever implementation offers you the features you will use/want.
PS. dont get the 30 second sales pitches from reddit/twitter. do proper research on the code/documentation if it means alot to you to want/need to run a full node. (especially if you are running a business)

also if people tell you Gmaxwell is god
even gmaxwell gets bugs in his own client which he has yet to fix
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9997


oh and BTCC (core/blockstream/dcg cartel pool) also does empty blocks
https://blockchain.info/block-height/465117

wrong.. he has no competition so although his average times of maybe say 10.026.. he is not fighting off competition

ok

imagine it this way...

there are 2 100m tracks
track A
5 runners
they do their runs and after 100 races
on average each racer wins 20 races (give or take as some racers are slightly faster) but each race has a winner somewhere around 10 seconds


track B
1 runner
he runs, and after 100 races
he wins 100 races no competition
each race take around 10 seconds give or take a few miliseconds

he does not take 50 seconds.. he still only takes ~10 seconds but because he has no competition he wins every time

here il display it better


remember only the green numbers matter as thats the "fastest win", and there is no second place.. hense why no one cares about how long it takes the rest, which is where you wrongly think it takes the others much much much longer than reality(you imply he only gets 1 block every ~50 seconds)

as you can see.. on a track of 5 racers 1 guy only wins once out of 5 races..
but on his own he wins every race.. obviously.. and also it does not mean that if he only wins 1 race out of 5 with competition. that it would take 50 seconds without competition

"success"
its not even actually fully functional yet.
segwit is about keypair utility.. not just "activation"

please read things NOT found on reddit/twitter. meaning: look for proper research material

its like reddit is saying, 'lite coin is a teenager that is sexually active'..
by that it means still a virgin but is actively ready to grab a breast at some point.

and you think core is perfect?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

do you even know who has the puppet strings of core
puppeteer-blockstream
puppet master - DCG

follow the puppet strings
coinbase - litecoin - charlie lee - bobby lee - bitcoin - btcc
   \                                                                      /
        \       core- blockstream - elements:segwit     /
             \                      |                            /
                    digital currency group portfolio

read all the announcements of the 'economic' support of segwit at a closed door agreement session.
guess who's meeting that was  (hint check DCG)

check out who is organising the main "consensus" conferences
coinDESK - DCG - 'consensus roundtable meeting

the tier network.. well lets just call it what it really is
the centre main base of the network ... the "core" layer (no coincidence of names has been a plan in the works for years)
gets to do as they like
the outter layer the skin may pretend to protect the core from rot. but the outer layer is just the layer where all the much, bruises and holes are seen.
DNS seeds at the CORE can easily shed away the skin (much like we dont see 0.7 nodes anymore)
the skin layer then just acts as storage protection. and not validating/orphaning blocks to keep pools following diverse nodes whom have consensus unity rules.

if CORE becomes the only team at the centre.. bitcoin is centralised because there is no peer network any more to vote/veto out certain funky tx's/blocks.

tier networks (the way CORE are creating it) by bypassing node consensus and bribing pools, are trying to get the tier network in their sole centralized control



2. no.. if core actually listened to the community and stuck to agreements there would be a healthy majority of diverse nodes that would happily upgrade to a PEER network of new consensus rules that add new functionality FOR ALL.
its only impossible to get high consensus if the dev team make code the community cannot agree on.. core should use their ears more than their mouth. and things would have moved forward more quicker and with more of a united community ALL on the same playing field of a peer network.

3. soft forks/ hardforks both have the same risks.. but what most dont realise is that soft can cause splits too, and soft actually by using backdoors and exploits to bypass consensus can cause more centralisation.
hard forks can occur without causing splits without centralisation.. but many people are only highlighting softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario, without even wanting to talk about the possibility of the opposite (softs worse, hards best)

most are just grammar nazi's editing copyright dates or words in the documentation/comments/readme files..
and most are just hoping one day they can get a line of code in somewhere to get noticed enough to get paid by blockstream

but when you look at who is moderating the IRC/tech discussion forums/mailing lists/bips

those 100+ unpaid guys dont have much sway unless they kiss ass first

with all that said.

if you stop reading the reddit FUD drama scripts. you will see that the implementations that are not blockstream endorsed DO NOT want to split the network

they were even offered to split the network many times and refused to take the offer.
they want to stay with a united diverse peer network.

the only group making threats of PoW changes, mandatory dictatorships with deadlines and threats. are the blockstream teams.

non blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along waiting for consensus. REAL consensus (node and pool)

the real funny part is. the blockstreamists cry that network splits are bad, but under the same breath are begging non blockstreamist to F**k off.
its all empty drama

bitcoin is bigger than "pools have the power"
bitcoin is a symbiotic relationship between nodes and pools

non mining nodes are not just database backups. nodes provide a crucial security mechanism too. which ensures that a simple 51% attack wont cause control issues. and pools have a security mechanism that prevents node sybil attacks wont cause control issues.

thats the beauty of bitcoin.

anyone saying non-mining nodes are meaningless are only saying that because they want to get you to shut down your non-mining node so that it sways the protection of that symbiotic relationship.

pools can have 30000000000exahash and make every block(that pool makes) in a certain funky format very quick.
but if nodes are rejecting those blocks in 3 seconds. they just look for another block from another source that does meet the rules

pools can make new blocks every 4 seconds and build ontop of themselves all they like (within their own local server) but if the network is rejecting that pool. they just wait for the other pools and accept a block that meets node rules..

meaning merchants never see the 30000000000exahash blocks reward because that pool trying to spend its reward had its block rejcted 100 blocks ago.
that pool realises its wasted all its hashpower making 100 blocks that merchants are not seeing.. so the pool cant spend it. thus the 30000000000exahash pool has a choice

continue wasting time making literally orphans in the hope nodes download a new version to accept 30000000000exahash pools blocks.
or
go back to make blocks that do fit the node consensus rules so merchants see the block as normal and the pool can spend its rewards

if there is going to be a hard consensus to move to adaptive /dynamic blocks. then there would not need to be the 1:3 ratio of a block inside a block.

instead at a point where all the nodes are ready to accept adaptive blocks, validating segwit can be part of standard consensus.. meaning it can be just a single block format that allows
(TX input)(sig)(TX output) - native/legacy tx
and
(TX input)(TX output)(sig) - segwit
all in the same block area

thus allowing a CLEAN single merkle block where people that want to use segwit tx's can.. and those who want to remain with native tx's can and then that unites the community because there is no cludge of tier networks of stripping blocks apart and compatibility issues between different nodes.

---

---

also

this would cause orphan risks of when nodes rescan the block chain

if 2016 blocks were X then the next time 2016 blocks were y(=x-0.01)  with the rules being Y.. all the X blocks would get orphaned because the 2016 blocks that are X are above the current Y rule.

there is a symbiotic relationship.

full nodes exist, not just as a data backup, but as rule checkers too
nodes(non-mining) do have a an important role to play too..

thats the beauty of bitcoin..

yes there is a risk of sybil attack.
hense the need for diverse decentralised nodes

yes there is a risk of 51% pool attack.
hense the need for diverse amount of pools