Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network...

[Zin-Zang]

The UASF taught everyone no. Plus my node validates my transactions without a need for me to trust anyone. That, for me, is very important.

No , UASF did not happen so it taught no one anything, except core will dangle a carrot in front of non-mining node dummies and not follow thru.

Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.

You think it makes a difference, but it make no difference except a small increase in your electric bill. 

[1715283338]

1715283338

[1715283338]

1715283338

[1715283338]

1715283338

[1715283338]

1715283338

[1715283338]

1715283338

[DooMAD]

Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.

Quoted for posterity.  Someone needs to revisit the basics.  A non-mining full node validates every block to ensure it conforms to numerous rules.

[Zin-Zang]

Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.

Quoted for posterity.  Someone needs to revisit the basics.  A non-mining full node validates every block to ensure it conforms to numerous rules.

You need to learn the English Language

val·i·date : prove the validity , ie: Authenticate :prove or show something to be true or genuine

relay  :   receive and pass on (information or a message)

Mining Nodes , insert transactions into the blocks, therefore the next mining node that includes a transaction after it's 1st block, ie: 2nd block and higher, are the ones that Validate / Authenticate the Transaction. (Confirmations)

Non-Mining Nodes, do nothing but RELAY the data they receive from the Mining Nodes.
They have no ability to insert transactions in a block or to truly validate/authenticate a transaction.
All they are doing is keeping a personal copy of their receipt of transactions from the blockchain.
It in no way effects the new transactions entered or validated by the mining nodes.

The prime example that only Mining Nodes truly Validate / Authenticate is this , turn off all of the mining nodes , and their will be no new transactions whatsoever and the last block transaction will never be Validated / Authenticate as long as all of the mining nodes are OFF!

Contrast this with the Useless Non-Mining Nodes, Turn off all of the Non-Mining Nodes and the only thing that stops is their relay of a copy of the blockchain.
ie: They only Relay data, nothing else.

Prove me wrong , turn off all of the non-mining nodes, and it will not stop 1 transaction from being validated by the mining nodes.
Go ahead , I double dare you.  


FYI:
The argument that non-mining nodes force mining nodes to obey the specs are nonsense,
What happens is if all of the mining nodes all decide to change specs, they basically forked the coin,
which means non-mining nodes now no longer relay that data unless they join the new fork,
and if they don't join the new fork, no one cares, because the non-mining nodes can't keep the network running.
The consensus of mining nodes protect the specs, and the threat that the developers change the algo to no longer allow mining nodes to be miners.
Non-mining nodes are purely irrelevant and as such , makes no difference whether they are turned off or on.
Gives some idiots the bragging rights like they are actually doing something.

 

[bones261]

  Oh Zin-Zang, you really think major services like exchanges are just going to trust everything the miners are feeding them with an SPV wallet? They run full nodes that are non-mining which validate every single transaction in every single block, to make doubly sure the miners aren't trying to feed them some bullshit. If you really think the BTC network would be a viable p2p network if nodes such as these went offline, you are kidding yourself. Perhaps BTC can survive if all of the hobby nodes went offline; however, the economy of the network extends beyond just mining activities.

[Zin-Zang]

 Oh zing-zang, you really think major services like exchanges are just going to trust everything the miners are feeding them with an SPV wallet? They run full nodes that are non-mining which validate every single transaction in every single block, to make doubly sure the miners aren't trying to feed them some bullshit. If you really think the BTC network would be a viable p2p network if nodes such as these went offline, you are kidding yourself. Perhaps BTC can survive if all of the hobby nodes went offline; however, the economy of the network extends beyond just mining activities.

Oh Bones261,
They run non-mining full Nodes that record a Receipt of their transactions to compare with their internal records.
And they should keep receipts, as a good accounting practice.
However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)

But believing they validate anything in the blockchain is nonsense,
if their nodes go offline, they may stop their service, but it in no way ever actually validated anything on the blockchain.
(no confirmations were ever added to the blockchain because of their non-mining node)

They only verified their receipts matched. Nothing else and no real service to anyone else on the blockchain.

You think non-mining nodes matter, you only drank core's kool-aid.  

* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *

[aliashraf]

@bones261 and @Zin-Zang

Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.

The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.

[Zin-Zang]

@bones261 and @Zin-Zang

Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.

The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.

Hmm,

We are going to have to disagree on this.
It was a threat from the developers to Change the algo, the non-mining nodes were inconsequential.

I put it to you like this.
If the non-mining nodes is power in your opinion,
how do you quantify any power increase or decrease from having a single non-mining node verses 1 billion non-mining nodes.

I see zero difference in network or economic power, please explain how you see any?

[bones261]

However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)

     AFAIK, most block explorers are non-mining nodes... Basically, a non-mining node is an auditor doing a full audit continuously. If you don't think having full audits done by multiple independent auditors is a valuable service to the health of the BTC network, I don't know what to tell you.

* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *

You do realize that what the Masternodes in Dash are doing is helping to run a second layer on top of the blockchain to perform such services as coin mixing and transaction locking. https://docs.dash.org/en/latest/introduction/features.html  Somewhat similar to what the Lightning Network is trying to do. Each channel on the LN are also rewarded a small tx fee if their channel is used in a hop.

[Zin-Zang]

However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)

     AFAIK, most block explorer are non-mining nodes... Basically, a non-mining node is an auditor doing a full audit continuously. If you don't think having full audits done by multiple independent auditors is a valuable service to the health of the BTC network, I don't know what to tell you.

* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *

You do realize that what the Masternodes in Dash are doing is helping to run a second layer on top of the blockchain to perform such services as coin mixing and transaction locking. https://docs.dash.org/en/latest/introduction/features.html  Somewhat similar to what the Lightning Network is trying to do. Each node on the LN are also rewarded a small tx fee if their channel is used in a hop.

AFAIK, most block explorer are non-mining nodes.

But you don't know for certain if they are running a mining node or non-mining or linking to a 3rd party node, you're trusting the block explorer.
So you think having 100 trusted sources, is safer than 1 trusted source.
Key word is trusted, 1 is as good as 1 million  
You only need more if you don't trust the one.

Exactly a masternode in Dash is valued, therefore they receive a % of mined coins.
All Proof of Stake Wallets that have coins are Full Nodes with value as they can enter transactions and affect the difficulty.
LN is an offchain product that works with any segwit infected blockchain btc, ltc, or groestlcoin and even they allow their nodes to earn.
Non-mining nodes have no actual value in BTC , so they receive Nothing.

[achow101]

This thread is so far off topic it is beyond rescue.

/locked