what you'll find is that in the network. the whole consensus of solving byzantine generals problem has been bypassed. with near everyone just following one general now(core) and any dev team that wants to propose a new rule/feature that opposes the core roadmap ends up getting knocked off the network.. there is less need of a decentralised network(their view). as the "generals"(plural) has been sidelined and relegated off network. and now its one general and tens of thousands of loyal soldiers blindly following.
its gone from a byzantine generals solution for a decentralised generals network. to a singular general for a distributed soldier network
people end up not wanting to archive 10 years of data. just to wade through all that data just to ensure their $100 is confirmed.
holding the data if they are just interested in a few addresses becomes a waste of hard drive utility so they end up prunning it, thus they no longer become able to be a node that others can sync from
.. also you being a DNS seed is not being a full node. its just being a yellow pages directory to guide users to each other, essentually. which if you without bias dont set it to just list core nodes(as all DNS should do), would help if a revolution occured to bring core down a peg or two back down to an equal playing field with other nodes that want to get back to a united community of byzantine generals,
so it has purpose for some independent people to be DNS seed nodes to ensure the network doesnt become full 100% core only centralised.
.....
but back to the users being full nodes...
the situation will get worse when things are really pushed to pursuade users off the bitcoin network and into using another network like lightning.
because lightning network is not a bitcoin layer. it is its own network that allows multiple coins.
(bitcoin layer is just the sponsorship advertising buzzword many people use to try faming up that their project is part of the crypto industry, to garner investment)
users using the lightning network will find in a couple years that funds from litecoin, vertcoin or bitcoin are locked to be unspendable on their respective networks in a smart contract with a "factory/watchtower" entity. and this entity would need to monitor those multiple chains as a masternode.(super bloated mega node) to then when convinced the locks are locked. offer out a un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to users that allows users to open channels. so that users can use phone apps to make payments instead of lugging around laptops/desktops when they visit starbucks
these factories become the gatekeepers (i would say banks but people hate when i say it, even if factually correct). this is so that users dont need to wait for their locked funds timeout to close a channel and broadcast a tx to the respective coin networks. they can just close channel and let the factory audit and then refresh them with a new un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to reopen a new channel at any time.
this allows users to open/close channels more frequently if their co-partner in-channel is offline
yea i know your thinking the optimism of how great and user friendly it is. but. if you think about the whole network security of phone app users needing to trust a factory/masternode(bank) who has the real privatkey co-sign control of the real funds
and that the factory has to be a masternode monitoring the networks and also many users channels...
its not healthy. or secure, especially when the channels themselves are not byzantine general solved either
the only reasons the bitcoin network is told to people that blockchains dont work and impractical and slow. is due to the limitations of a blockchain imposed by the developers.(bitcoin is not AI self coding.. devs code it. devs put in the limitations, devs can remove them too)
anyway, take the initial block download argument. people dont really object to the blockchain data size. as a 256gb data is less than a fingernail(microsd) size, not a server size
its the fact that its coded that users cant even check a unverified balance to be able to do anything until the chain is synced.
if only they realised they could bloomfilter(request specific data of specific addresses) from peers first. just to get a unverified balance instantly. and then make the verifying/syncing more of a background secondary task that goes on less noticably so that people are not twiddling their thumbs waiting to see if they even have a balance/imported the correct wallet/keys
many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that to "be your own bank" on LN requires being a masternode of multiple chains. which is much more than just full noding one chain
(if you still think LN is bitcoin only feature.. research
chainhash registry code in LN aswell as atomic swaps)
many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not a 'scaling bitcoin' its a take people away from bitcoin and use 12decimal payment values PEGGED to bitcoin via a masternode
many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not scaling bitcoin because its taking people off the bitcoin network where people wont want to be bitcoin full nodes as they are never going to be using bitcoin network daily
but anyways.. we are already seeing the dilution of the community bing diverted away from bitcoin. we are starting to see where the term "bitcoin maximalists" are being used as a derogatory term even to make it fel like if you support bitcoin as a payment network and want bitcoin to be secure and to scale then your 'dirt'
Poll
