Admitting that node count is irrelevant kills the biggest argument against increasing the blocksize
The number of nodes over a longer period of time is relevant. Node count as a metric used for 'debating' is irrelevant. You can't properly measure the actual number of nodes and the number can be faked. Your attempts at trolling won't work.
Nonsense. Number of non-mining nodes (call them what they are: wallets) is irrelevant to Bitcoin security.
Completely wrong. This implies that the entire network could be comprised of SPV nodes that
trust a small, centralized group (miners) regarding the validity of the blockchain. That is not a trustless system at all.
More nonsense, it
doesn't. Am assuming that your inference process works something like this:
1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.
2. I disagree, and point out that the padlocks littering our lawn add nothing to our security.
3. From this, you infer that I'm saying that our house is secure without those padlocks.
That's flawed reasoning. I've never suggested that Bitcoin is either "a trustless system" or secure, merely that non-mining nodes don't *add* anything to security.
It means that miners can level endless attacks on the entire userbase, from double-spending to transaction censorship.
Yes, they could, if that happens to be in their calculated best interest. Non-mining nodes (wallets) prevent this only as far as being ...you guessed it,
wallets. You can rely on your
wallet for making sure the correct ruleset is being followed. If you chose to rely on other_nodes (SPV wallet), or other people (web wallet), that's called trust.
This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.
Your level of participation/("say") in Bitcoin is proportional to your hashrate. The only voice BTC holders have is the market: You may [try to] sell when things don't go your way. Again, running non-mining nodes offers you nothing above verifying transactions for yourself (again, used as your wallet).
Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that.
Yes, something that's often glossed over. But non-mining nodes are impotent -- if only [for the sake of simplifying the argument] because "bad," competing nodes could be trivially/inexpensively created.
The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks).
But how do you keep missing something which seems so self-evident: non-mining nodes could be created by anyone,
including the miners they're meant to keep in check.
It doesn't reduce centralization, only serves to obfuscate it.
By definition, nodes reduce centralization.
By definition of ...what?
Since every node must receive and process every transaction in every block, they are the "peers" in the p2p network. They are what gives meaning to the word "decentralization." If miners (a much more centralized group than non-mining nodes) control all nodes, then the entire userbase is at the mercy of a group that can collude against them.
Ahh, I see, on a purely technical level. So if I run 5000 nodes, I become 1/2 the userbase & Bitcoin becomes x2 as "decentralized." GG.
That the number of nodes, or a given proportion of nodes, can be obfuscated in the short term has nothing to do with that. It doesn't matter that you can't have a clear picture of the node software people are running, nor of their intentions....what matters is that without peers, bitcoin becomes a network based on trust.
But it already is! Gah.
Edit, TL;DR: Yes, Bitcoin would be more secure if every wallet was a full node. It would be more secure still if every wallet also hashed. This is not the case, nor is it likely to be. We rely on (trust) multiple middlemen, from BitPay to exchanges, and trust the people we transact with to actually send us something in return for the bits we send them. Number of non-mining nodes is irrelevant.
Show Posts
)
