Why pruned node is full node ?

[aliashraf]

1- Unlike naive common sense that relates value to the qualities present in a commodity, LTOV is smart enough to understand that the utility that an object provides has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with its value simply because value is a quantity and not a quality!
The fact that the air you breath is vitally important (and beyond, essentially critical) does not imply that it has any economic value at all, actually, it yields no value, zero, as far as economics is involved!
3- LTOV explains value as the average, cumulative, socially required work for producing a commodity.Y

that is pure nonsense and i don't care who came up the theory. for a simple reason {...}

But you should care exactly because it is not about simple reasoning!

I'm not here to teach Marx or political economics rather I'm warning you and people like you that it is not your job to invent the field from ground zero. It has been a while, like two centuries, that economists have been really busy proposing models and debating about what is the source of the value of commodities in the context of a bigger question: What the hell is going on in a Capitalist economy? It is why it is called political economics and it is why you are so confused and misguided about the subject: It is a sensitive, political debate. Bitcoin is political too! Isn't it? It is about resistance, isn't it? Otherwise, why should anybody try to establish or participate in a movement for an alternative monetary system or even be optimistic about it?

I'm a fan of you though   and I feel an obligation to do my best for you, so, let's address some points:

air has utility so it is valuable

NO! It is not! Value is a quantity, not a quality. One may propose air, fresh, high-quality air is an invaluable substance.

{...} even if a centralized altcoin had 10 times more work than bitcoin, it still remains without value because it is centralized

A centralized altcoin needs zero work, this is what makes it worthless and not the state and the quality of being centralized. It is absolutely possible for a centralized altcoin to have some utility and to be useful.

Pegged coins are an important example of zero-value-still-useful digital assets: A company may tokenize its shares through a smart contract, a game service provider may sell its service by means of "coins" that represent your points in the game, etc. They are useful tools for specific purposes but they do not carry any value as they are not produced by labor even if you may buy or sell such coins.

Bottom line: LTOV is a model, a very powerful model that can help us to understand and to distinguish bitcoin. Once it is adopted properly it will act as an anchor in the chaotic debates and inevitable flow of misrepresentations and panic.

[aliashraf]

I believe you took gmaxwell's post in the wrong context. In Bitcoin, everyone should assume that ANYONE can be a hostile/bad actor.

Wrong proposition. Bitcoin solves the trust problem by shifting it from single points of failure to a public, open class of actors that are bound to a protocol and strongly encourages them to follow a trustworthy line of behaving: miners. It is just void to announce miners as a class to be not trustworthy. "Don't trust miners!" it is what Greg says and it is absolutely wrong in any hypothetical context.

Don't trust, verify.

It is extremism in its worst and most naive form, no matter how much popular such memes are. Bitcoin is not an ideology made of memes and slogans it is a very dangerous direction, taking bitcoin as a sect of enthusiasts and believers in a 'vanity fair' of slogans.

As a 'believer' in this slogan, "Don't trust, verify", why should anybody release any asset in exchange for bitcoin even after few confirmations? How his or her full node's verification process is supposed to resist against an untrustworthy mining scene? huh? You can verify and verify and verify again but miners can simply defraud you by colliding on a few blocks re-org.

As such a believer, how could you ever help you or your friends from being the victim of a censorship attack by miners?

See? It is just a popular meme, nothing more.  

Miners are people with their own self-interests. Let them do their work, but don't trust them.

Miners are not a simple group of people! They are bound to a protocol that makes them, as a whole, the source of trust. Without putting trust in miners there will be no single bitcoin transaction effectively processable.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe you took gmaxwell's post in the wrong context. In Bitcoin, everyone should assume that ANYONE can be a hostile/bad actor.

Wrong proposition. Bitcoin solves the trust problem by shifting it from single points of failure to a public, open class of actors that are bound to a protocol and strongly encourages them to follow a trustworthy line of behaving: miners. It is just void to announce miners as a class to be not trustworthy. "Don't trust miners!" it is what Greg says and it is absolutely wrong in any hypothetical context.

I saw his post from the context of "don't trust ANYONE", including miners. Bitcoin's design was made for a hostile environment.

Don't trust, verify.

It is extremism in its worst and most naive form, no matter how much popular such memes are. Bitcoin is not an ideology made of memes and slogans it is a very dangerous direction, taking bitcoin as a sect of enthusiasts and believers in a 'vanity fair' of slogans.

As a 'believer' in this slogan, "Don't trust, verify", why should anybody release any asset in exchange for bitcoin even after few confirmations? How his or her full node's verification process is supposed to resist against an untrustworthy mining scene? huh? You can verify and verify and verify again but miners can simply defraud you by colliding on a few blocks re-org.

As such a believer, how could you ever help you or your friends from being the victim of a censorship attack by miners?

See? It is just a popular meme, nothing more.  

Haha. Or extremitism in its most needed form.

Miners are people with their own self-interests. Let them do their work, but don't trust them.

Miners are not a simple group of people! They are bound to a protocol that makes them, as a whole, the source of trust. Without putting trust in miners there will be no single bitcoin transaction effectively processable.

Yet, they can also band together, play politics, and push their agenda on the network.

[pooya87]

But you should care exactly because it is not about simple reasoning!

I'm not here to teach Marx or political economics rather I'm warning you and people like you that it is not your job to invent the field from ground zero. It has been a while, like two centuries, that economists have been really busy proposing models and debating about what is the source of the value of commodities in the context of a bigger question: What the hell is going on in a Capitalist economy?

that still doesn't mean it is not wrong specially when you are trying to apply the model to something like bitcoin which is not compatible with the theory.
i see your point though but i can not see how "bitcoin value is determined by the average amount of work needed to produce it". all i can accept is that the amount of work is only determining part of the value not all of it, or more accurately it contributed to bitcoin value. the main part is still determined by the utilities that bitcoin provides.

{...} even if a centralized altcoin had 10 times more work than bitcoin, it still remains without value because it is centralized

A centralized altcoin needs zero work, this is what makes it worthless and not the state and the quality of being centralized. It is absolutely possible for a centralized altcoin to have some utility and to be useful.

a ton of energy is being wasted mining hundreds of shitcoins, so they do need a lot of work and they still remain useless (without utilities). even for non-mineable coins there is still a lot of computing power, storage space,... are being wasted keeping the useless network going.

if this theory were correct and "utility had absolutely nothing to do with value" then if i were to spend a million dollar on mining equipment to mine a dead altcoin that died due to lack of utility the value of that altcoin should become a million dollar. but that is obviously not true, i would only be burning money on something without utility without creating any value whatsoever.

[aliashraf]

Miners are not a simple group of people! They are bound to a protocol that makes them, as a whole, the source of trust. Without putting trust in miners there will be no single bitcoin transaction effectively processable.

Yet, they can also band together, play politics, and push their agenda on the network.

You are 100% correct as far as we are talking about the actual bitcoin on the ground and it is very embracing.

We have two bitcoins: 1) Actual Bitcoin, 2)Pure Bitcoin the former is the one we have in hands as a blockchain and a protocol initiated by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 and is improved and maintained cautiously by bitcoin core devs and the latter is the theoretic framework for a technology suggested again by Satoshi in the White Paper in 2008 and is discussed and enriched by many authors since then. They are strongly related but not the same.

Actual Bitcoin is being put in trouble by centralization in mining mainly because of pooling pressure flaw which I've analyzed thoroughly 2 years ago in this forum it is the basic driving force that triggers such concerns.

As far as we are discussing Actual Bitcoin and not bitcoin as a technology and a framework, i.e. Pure Bitcoin, I'll vote for UASF sword and most of the measures Greg and his friends have been taking to keep pool operators and ASIC manufacturers inline, the problem for me starts when he tries to make a theory out of it! There is no theory for damage control and white hat hacking, it is just damage control nothing more!
 
Bitcoin technology should not be poisoned by shallow ideas emerging from current stupid mining scene of bitcoin neither in affirmative nor in negative form, pools and ASICs are poisonous entities and we should keep the theory not contaminated, pure.

In theory, we don't need pools as an obligatory consequence of mining variance because mining variance is not inherently built into PoW idea, hence there is no threat of banding together at all in a pure, ideally refined Bitcoin world and there is no need for a 'Do not Trust Miners' amendment to Bitcoin constitution.

[DooMAD]

Actual Bitcoin is being put in trouble by centralization in mining mainly because of pooling pressure flaw which I've analyzed thoroughly 2 years ago in this forum it is the basic driving force that triggers such concerns.

As far as we are discussing Actual Bitcoin and not bitcoin as a technology and a framework, i.e. Pure Bitcoin, I'll vote for UASF sword and most of the measures Greg and his friends have been taking to keep pool operators and ASIC manufacturers inline, the problem for me starts when he tries to make a theory out of it! There is no theory for damage control and white hat hacking, it is just damage control nothing more!
 
Bitcoin technology should not be poisoned by shallow ideas emerging from current stupid mining scene of bitcoin neither in affirmative nor in negative form, pools and ASICs are poisonous entities and we should keep the theory not contaminated, pure.

Consider moving this to a new topic, then.  The topic started as pruned/full nodes, yet once again, you've somehow managed to drag it back to your favourite whinge of ASICs and pools.  Via any means necessary, right?

[aliashraf]

@Doomad, we are not derailed:

Greg correctly brought up concerns about 'trusting in miners' as a result of promoting lite node ideas and emphasized on verifying the full history as an ultimate security measure then I objected (correctly, IMO) by stressing on the critical importance of PoW as the most characteristic property of bitcoin it is where the train goes and it should go if we want a deep understanding of the concept: a full node.

On the other hand, I could admit that I'm showing some symptoms of Bernie Sanders Consistency Syndrome 

It's not intentional, I swear 

[aliashraf]

{...}you are trying to apply the model to something like bitcoin which is not compatible with the theory.

Bitcoin is the most distinguished example ever representing the solidity of Karl Marx's Labor Theory Of Value.

To be more specific, bitcoin is very special in terms of being the only single commodity ever that from the first day of production and being introduced to the market has two potentially important impact on economics: 1) Re-enforcing Gold Standard advocation 2) Representing the most obvious example of LTOV, the most concrete example of an abstract economic concept: value.

Bitcoin is the purest form of value realized ever in history. You and I could easily patch bitcoin core code to start a brand new blockchain with an alternate Genesis block as its root and get the same utility level of bitcoin by running the code on our laptops, generating tones of worthless shitcoins within days the utility would be the same but the value is extremely low because the work is low and it won't get better until the difficulty is
getting harder and the average value stored in the coins supplied is increasing, without more work, more hash power there will be no value.

a ton of energy is being wasted mining hundreds of shitcoins, so they do need a lot of work and they still remain useless (without utilities).

It is not wasted, people won't go mining coins if they are not considered somehow useful. Cryptocurrency is about storing work, hence value, in a digital form to be considered money that passes a few famous tests^*:

• Fungibility: Uniform distribution of value among all of its units, i.e. interchangeability.
  
• Durability: resistant against environmental effects while in circulation.
  
• Portability: easily carried.
  
• Cognizability: its value must be easily identified and confirmed by the public.
  

 
^*There is another property called  "stability of value" which I deliberately removed from the list for some reason.

You could easily double-check on such coins to confirm that they would all pass this test.
So, the work is not just 'wasted' and to be more specific:
People typically don't do irrational, stupid choices when it comes to economics and if they do they will fall short of being viable for being part of the "average socially required work for producing a commodity" the way that Labor Theory Of Value defines it solidly.

[gmaxwell]

It's sad to see another perfectly fine thread wreaked by someone who can't control themselves and stay on topic.