Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
How so? Explain how
non-mining nodes garlic garlands are irrelevant to security. Otherwise you have no basis to compare them to garlic garlands or padlocks strewn about the lawn--it's just a baseless opinion.
FTFY. If you can't prove to me that garlic garlands are irrelevant to home security, it's just a baseless opinion.
Why would I need to prove anything about garlic garlands? You haven't established that they are remotely relevant to this discussion.
My claim is that non-mining nodes are essential to network security. I have provided evidence which you refuse to address. You made the claim that non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security. You have presented zero evidence of that.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.
And what does this have to do with non-mining nodes? You haven't established that (see above). This isn't about garlic.
It's called an analogy.
It's called a
baseless analogy, i.e. one you have provided no factual, logical or evidentiary basis for.
If I compare thee to a summer's day, I don't mean to suggest you have 24hrs & that there are 365 of you in a year.
Okay. I can also compare "black" to "white" and "night" to "day." That doesn't prove anything. This provides zero evidence for your argument that non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security.
Your failure to understand such basics is, partially, what led me to conclude that you're a
... frustratingly dense douche ...
Duh.
And you round out your complete butchery of logic with an ad hominem. And not even an original one.
It may appear to be wordy, since I make an effort to respond to every point my opponent makes. You, on the other hand, respond to precisely zero of the arguments your opponent makes. Then you complain that your opponent uses too many words, as if that was sufficient to refute his arguments.
In other words, you're just talking shit, as usual.
The problem with attempting to converse with your likes is that (on top of your other failings) you cause the argument to bloom -- instead of limiting yourself to a single point, you create multiple branches, going off on multiple tangents.
So...your opponent makes multiple points, and that justifies you addressing none of them? Right.
This could be due to an undisciplined mind -- inability to focus, choosing instead the spray & pray, the shotgun approach, or "throwing spaghetti at the wall & seeing what sticks."
Perhaps you could begin by showing my arguments to be false, instead of ignoring every single one of them. You continue to try to attack me as a person, rather than doing so. That's patently dishonest.
A less generous interpretation is "force the debate into a stalemate by causing it to bloom & become unmanageable/"too much of a bother to continue."
If so, GG.
How is it a stalemate? You're the one veering the discussion onto irrelevant tangents about "The Father of Lies, unicorns, Easter Bunnies and garlands of garlic" in an attempt to ignore all the evidence I've provided that non-mining nodes are essential to network security. If they are in fact irrelevant to security, go ahead and address the arguments I've made instead of veering off on bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13865510#msg13865510https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13874689#msg13874689https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13879163#msg13879163https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13909294#msg13909294https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13920309#msg13920309One node is one agent in the network. Could you explain how it isn't? That doesn't mean that one user = one node.
In that case, it things like Sybil attack are bullshit -- all the nodes participating in the attack are "[valid, legitimate] agent
in the network."An "agent" is simply "the doer of an action." That implies nothing about whether they are "valid and legitimate."
How can you define "attacking nodes" as "valid and legitimate?" The premise of bitcoin is/was to use a peer-to-peer network to establish a trustless method for value transfer
that addresses fraud. It was intended precisely to deter any suck attacks, suggesting that "attacking nodes" are not "legitimate" at all.
A Sybil attack is not an attack, merely Bitcoin functioning as it should.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Sybil_attack-The attacker can relay only blocks that he creates, putting you on a separate network. You're then open to double-spending attacks.
-If you rely on transactions with 0 confirmations, the attacker can just filter out certain transactions to execute a double-spending attack.
I'm at a loss for how double-spending attacks can be construed as "Bitcoin functioning as it should." From the introduction of the whitepaper:
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
Your link is a 404. Source?
Are you talking about
this? And what is your point?
Case closed.
Perhaps, but certainly not in
your favor.
