Nodes were DISCONNECTING other nodes, not banning them.  You are the master of trying (and failing) to rewrite history.  Troll harder.

Unless you're ready to admit that this Khaos77 persona wasn't your first account (and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if you were RNC/Anti-cen/some another banned account) then you weren't around before SegWit was implemented.  Hell, even your old Zin-Zang account was registered post-SegWit (Deja vu, anyone?  ).  If you had been around at the time to see for yourself the incessant infighting and lack of progress being made, you wouldn't say we were stronger together.  The simple fact is that the two ideologies are not compatible.  So those other chains are free to experiment with their larger blocks, but, at the same time, there's nothing to prevent them swallowing their pride and using this chain as well.  That's the beauty of it and none of your toxic poison can taint that. 

Stop derailing the topic, please.  No one cares what your personal (along with warped, insane, wrong and stupid) definition of consensus is.  The software people run determines the consensus rules.  Not you.  You are an insignificant nothing.  Keep running your BU node along with the other paltry dozen or so people on the entire planet who don't understand Bitcoin.  That's as far as you can go with your objection.  Anything else is just verbal diarrhoea on your part.  If that's not good enough for you, go cry to someone who cares, because none of us do.

It's beyond hilarity that you try to back up your fellow disinformation agent in spreading the lie that nodes don't matter when you spend every waking moment of your sad little existence whining about the software doing things you don't want it to.  As always, the reply is:

It wouldn't do those things if the other people running that code agreed with you.  Ergo, it stands to reason that they don't agree with you.  Troll harder.

If you're foolish enough to believe anything that lying scumsack says, then you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence.  FakeSatoshi clearly doesn't value full nodes and will lie to make other people think they're not important.  You will spread those lies because you're an idiot.

They don't relay blocks if those blocks don't conform to the protocol rules the non-mining nodes are enforcing.  The function of the node is to validate first, then relay.  They don't just blindly pass the information along without checking it first.  Here's how the validation process works, in case your ignorance proves overwhelming to reason and you need further explanation.

Every non-mining node carries out those checks on every single block.  If miners violate those rules, their block is rejected by the network.

You are a disinformation agent, who would happily see a network where miners were in full control because there weren't enough non-mining nodes to keep their behaviour in check.  But you might as well give up, because anyone with eyes can see what you're doing, it's that obvious.

Good shout, you've got my support on that one.  I'd say that suggestion is worthy of having its own topic.  It's not related to trust, so best to keep the two things separate.

My concern would be that highlighting them in such a fashion might give users the mistaken impression that they're maybe urgent or high-priority messages that are important to read.  If anything, suspicious threads should have visibly less attention drawn to them.  Perhaps something more in the style of users on your ignore list?

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

Facebook is an easy target, though.  It only takes one government to pull the rug out from under them and put a stop to the whole song and dance.  I don't see how distributed blockchains with individual people running nodes all over the world would be subject to the same regulatory pressures.  Every government on the face of the planet would have to reach an agreement on what regulations to enforce.  I can't think of many occasions where they all came together and agreed on something like that.  My impression is that governments will go after the low-hanging fruit they can reach, which will be exchanges, webwallets and other such custodial services.  It's not practical to regulate a protocol.  And if you try to ban it, you simply drive usage underground, which is not what they want either.  

Who said anything about price?  I'm talking about utility.  A currency I'm happy to receive as a payment because I have the capability to purchase tangible goods and services with it.  Other coins can't match the network effects of Bitcoin, which is something you continually underestimate the importance of. 

As for your other remark about non-mining nodes and security, I'm not going to waste my time repeating something to you that I've said enough times in the past (to far superior opponents, no less).  Suffice to say, you are wrong.  End of. 

The idea of a blockchain is the nodes are constantly receiving new data.  You won't have "easy access" to the recently sent transactions in order to validate and relay them if it takes time to unpack them first.

Compression may be viable for the initial sync, when your start a node for the first time and have to download the entire blockchain, but not for live day-to-day running.

Time is the flaw in your idea.  If you had a really slow blockchain where new blocks were only appended every hour or so, perhaps then it could handle extreme compression.  But the undeniable fact is that uncompressing such files takes time. 

It also places an additional burden on memory requirements, so those securing the chain would need more powerful hardware to perform that task.  If you limit the potential of who can secure your chain in that way, chances are, it won't be a very secure chain.

Uhhhh.... No.  You really can't.  You wouldn't be able to use it because the nodes would be too busy uncompressing the data to be able to validate the blocks in time.

All this "can't tell us about it" nonsense is just a smokescreen because you're out of your depth and you need an excuse to avoid explaining your outlandish claims in any detail.  

Hence your little propaganda campaign?



Now explain why all the myriad altcoins which do exactly that are still a speck of dust in the wind compared to Bitcoin.  

How many times do you need it repeated?  DOING THOSE THINGS COMES AT A COST.  When those securing the chain are willing to pay that cost, they will do so.  Calling it a "political problem" is reductionism at best.  The problem is free will, market forces, economic incentive, network effects, consensus and the simple but undeniable fact that the vast majority of all those people across the globe currently securing the Bitcoin blockchain simply don't agree with you.  They've been given the option of running a client to increase to a 2mb base + SegWit and they turned it down.  Most users on this chain didn't want the cost of the 2mb base weight.  The icing-on-the-cake part, where you would also naturally decline to run that particular client, but only because the Segregated Witness part is what you can't reconcile with, just shows how far out of touch you are with what users on this chain want.

Tangentially related, should the Speculation board not be a sub of Bitcoin instead of a sub of Economy?  Speculation (Altcoins) is under the Alternate cryptocurrencies category, so why is Bitcoin's Speculation sub not under the Bitcoin category?  Maybe more users would notice it and post their threads in the right place if it was moved.

Which is why you break the cycle by building a system where you can prove it works without that crap. 

Stop repeating past mistakes, learn from them and improve. 

Then count me out.  I don't care if it's a company or a robot, I'm not following a chain where KYC is enforced because I fundamentally disagree with it.  I wish you the best of luck with your altcoin.

I don't think it's that wild.  In fact, I'd say there's no imagination involved at all.  Corporate lobbying is a huge issue in the US.  Those with the money pull the strings and the puppets in office dance to keep the campaign donations flowing.  The damage caused by being able to buy influence in this fashion should never be underestimated.    

Contrary to what the headlines might tell you, banks are not adopting crypto, they're co-opting it.  There's a difference.  Crypto is something that gives autonomy and self-determination to individuals.  It puts you directly in control of your own wealth.  Banks are not going to offer you that because it conflicts with their business model.  Whatever it is they're building, I can assure you it's not designed to empower you in the way that a real cryptocurrency does.

That user could probably be replaced with a few lines of code, heh.  On that note, why not have a bot to scrape news sites and generate the topics, so that people interested in an actual discussion can then talk about them?  All the abuse is taking place in the first post, so that's the part we need to tackle.

And you don't think you're about 10 years too late for this? 

Either way, even if you had a time machine to go back and change it, such a proposal would still require a hard fork to enact and there's no guarantee people would have followed your fork.  Not to mention the impracticality of proving that each person is actually getting a fair share.  How would you even begin to do that without adding KYC to Bitcoin? 

I just can't envision a reality where it's feasible.



inb4 someone mentions Communism and the topic gets derailed into a political discussion