Validating vs mining nodes, really a myth ?

[pawanjain]

Hey guys,

i was pretty sure that validating nodes give us some kind of security even if they don't mine.
But now i got into a lot of discusssions with these BCH/SV guys and not 100% anymore How does a full node prevennt double spending, its accepting the longest chain no matter what no ?
What else are they validating. Does a node operator has to do manual auditing of blocks to confirm no double spend happened?

so what is true or wrong about this article from this Faketoshi Craig ?

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-myth-of-the-full-validation-node-d7db52748649

pls not (only) hate, give me some answers i can learn from to understand it better.

Cheers 

The double spend can happen in a PoW system no matter what happens because the system is designed in such a way. Although there is a huge possibility of double spending, there is only 0.1% probability of his attack to be successful.  A transaction needs 6 confirmations to be validated and probability of all the 6 confirmations to happen simultaneously is very very low and even if it does happen then the there will be at least a difference in confirmation time in the next block and hence the block with faster confirmations will win the race and will eliminate the other chain of invalid blocks. Hence the double spend attack won't be successful.

[1713559165]

1713559165

[1713559165]

1713559165

[1713559165]

1713559165

[1713559165]

1713559165

[1713559165]

1713559165

[DooMAD]

Also, to put this entire topic into context, I'm pretty sure Khaos77 is Zin-Zang.  I can only assume they're a plant in this thread to make franky1 appear reasonable by comparison, but they're both worthless trolls.

[franky1]

doomad

not everyone does NEED to be a full node. thats what SPV is for. for the folks that dont need/want to be full nodes.
not everyone does NEED to have 100 connections. infact the more connections made the more your diluting your own benefit

no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is no NEED for regular users.
no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is everyone shouldnt be a full node

here is a basic summary:

imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 100 nodes connected.. thats 0.05mb per node (sending ~1.2mb 100x)
imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 2 nodes.. thats 2.5mb per node(sending 1.2mb 2x)

the second option is better for home user as the block is sent in seconds to just 2 users meaning speedy. also its only 2.4mb total instead of 120mb total.

now imagine it from the receiver side.. imagine a merchant was connected to a home node. the merchant wont want to get data at 0.05mb speed they would prefer 2.5mb speed
so not only will the home user benefit by lowering nodes connected but also the people on the other end would benefit too
its far better that a home user only connects to 1-2 nodes for own benefit and have just enough for own NEED, and let the merchants that have a higher NEED do the higher node connected higher bandwidth/sped connections. as they NEED it more

For that very reason I was inquiring about the usage of maxconnections with low values. If i understand correctly, using the value 10 would give me 8 nodes to connect to while allowing 2 nodes connect to me. The default is 125 which would allow 117 people to connect to me while i connect to 8 nodes.

125 connections might be a bit too much for a poor 1mbps down 300ish kbps up link...

exactly, lower the count down and youll save alot of bandwidth, thus allowing the speed you do have to be more concentrated on those that NEED connections

so doomad go turn your social drama brain and go play with someone else
or atleast spend more time on researching BITCOIN and lesstime with social drama

seems you dedicate more time trying to poke me then you spend learning or talking about bitcoin.
here is the simple lesson.

bitcoin is code.
code is not wrote by AI
code is wrote by devs.

so when i talk about bitcoin, code and devs. its very much ontopic for this forum.
when you want to meander and talk about me.. thats just social drama

again(from different topics). before you hit the reply button, trying to poke the bear in any topic. ask yourself.
are you going to talk about bitcoin and devs.
or
just poke at some social drama and people that have talked about devs, and bitcoin issues less than optimistically

and dont play the victim card like your the one thats receiving the social drama, because your an instigator of social drama
instead spend more time learning
or a better challenge.
for every post you have wrote in say the last 6 months containing an insult. try learning a bitcoin fact to atleast balance the ratio

[Wind_FURY]

Also, to put this entire topic into context, I'm pretty sure Khaos77 is Zin-Zang.  I can only assume they're a plant in this thread to make franky1 appear reasonable by comparison, but they're both worthless trolls.

You should read this, https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

Go to the topic on "forum sliding" and "inoculating the public against the truth".

I believe it's our responsibility to make the newbies more aware that there is always some socio-political attack on Bitcoin happening everyday.

[DooMAD]

no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is no NEED for regular users.
no where, no how, no when, no why. did i ever say there is everyone shouldnt be a full node

I know you're not that stupid to say it such a direct fashion, because people would naturally take affront to that.  But are we supposed to take it as a coincidence that you constantly present the math to show the "bottleneck" home users create?  I see the utter contempt you show for such users.  Because they're the ones standing in the way of what you want.  It's clear you'd love to see them gone and just have businesses running full nodes so you could justify more throughput with less latency.  You would happily throw decentralisation under the bus at your earliest convenience.  No one is falling for it. 

The ideas you support have been implemented in other chains and those chains are failing to attract a sizeable userbase.  So, rather than accept the fact that no one likes your ideas, you campaign tirelessly to inflict your poison on this chain.  Even though we clearly don't want it. 

Here are just some of the topics where you blame home users for ruining your (horrific) vision of what Bitcoin "should" be:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680.msg48195853#msg48195853
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48750341#msg48750341
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107437.msg49649494#msg49649494
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48748926#msg48748926

And my personal favourite:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49730373#msg49730373

[franky1]

blah blah insult blah

doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.
now go do something useful like some code/network research instead of your flip flop social drama

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

anyway the thing about home users is this:
their bandwidth/bottlnecking issue can easily be solved by just not being what used to be called "supernodes" (nodes with over 100 connections) to being nodes with just a few connections to give best effiecient experience for not only home user but the recipient of the data. thus reduce the "it uses too much bandwidth" cries

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
the home user bottleneck thing is more about use of speed to be efficient so that there are no cries and thus able to be an effctive node

your the one that wants home users to have bad user experience by trying to twist words. and you try to insinuate that home users should stick to high connection counts (meaning slow diluted internet speed per connection) all coz you want people to dislike the bitcoin network to persuade them to other networks

seems its you that wants home users to give up and just use LN

so just man up. find just one narrative of flip or flop and stick with it. be honest with yourself and others about your goal.
you pretend i have a campaign. and yet its obviously you that wants LN populated and bitcoin depopulated. so just man up and admit it

real funny part
i have tried to keep this and other topics on topic. and yt its th usual echo chamber tribe that meander in and turn discussions about bitcoin and the network. and turn it into poking the bear social drama of frankys said x/y/z
atleast windfury linked where he got taught his tactic and is now subtly trying to link doomad into learning how windfury does it so that doomad improves his skills of offtopic personal insult
because it has become noticable that doomad has become boring and empty of context in his attempts.

i can show you and your echo chamber of buddies many posts where your mindsets is in favour of
forking people off the network.
telling people if they dont like the centralist LN is the future solution thus deburden bitcoin, the only solution you see is those that want to keep bitcoin populated/have utility.. is telling true bitcoiners to f**k off.

and once again. dont try the flip flop wishy washy card that your a victim of social drama, when its ur cho chamber that meander topics into such by poking the bear.

now go try doing some bitcoin research and spend less time on your social drama

[DooMAD]

doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.

Lie.

Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks.  That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.  You've said on many occasions that you think we should get rid of the "wishy washy scaling factor" and just have everyone use a 4mb base weight, but you're the only one I've seen calling for that.  If users wanted what you want, they wouldn't be running the code that supports SegWit.  And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node.  Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay.  I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours.  You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..

*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*

How many users are changing the setting up, franky1?  How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion?  Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?  

I'm not buying it.  You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion.  You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:  

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  

You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing.  Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network.  It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks.  Funny coincidence, that.    

[franky1]

doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.

Lie.

Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks.  That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.

typical mr flipfop
1, doomad your own words about compatibility and permissionless drivel was you saying there was no opt in.
you even admit the truth for once in another topic by saying your adoration for cores attempts to push people off the network that opposed segwit1x. BEFORE segwit1x got locked in.

so you now pretending high majority diverse people of 2015-2017 opt-in for segwit goes against your initial flipped mindset.

try to learn what narrative you want to push and stick with one narrative.

2. again your mindset is stuck in the flip flop echo chamber of rpeated thoughts of the "gigabyte blocks" myth pushed by your centralised friends.
reality is that PROGRESSIVE SCALING such as the same as what happened 2010-2015 (0.25,0.5,0.75,1mb) is not a bigger deterrant.
reality is that users can just change settings or decide if they actually need to be a full on supernode.
EG instead of connecting to 100+ connections. they can bring it down to 10 and thus make each of those 10 connections 10x better speed experience due to less speed dilution. while also for the user themselves not having to broadcast out 100x data but only 10x data. thus benefiting the user and the receiver.. win win.

And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.

LN nodes will be masternodes monitoring multiple coins so they can coinswap.
guess what. when that becomes popular. YOUR flip flop will change and suddenly you will b saying how home users are not restricted to only 1mb-2mb data.
because the reality is home users are not restricted to 1-2-4mb of data..
the actual issues home users have is that they try to go above their need by trying to connect to hundreds of nodes.

as for the stuff about LN running full nodes. even the devs admit people wont be carrying their desktops and laptops around to go shopping. so LN's design for "starbucks coffee"/groceries/pizza small purchases instantly is for the lite wallet app userbase.

its the devs and your echo chamber that keep on saying bitcoin cant handle X while other networks are the solution, yet the other networks will be dominated by third party factories/watchtowers and then users locked into them using autopiloted phone apps.

atleast try doing some research..

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node.  Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay.  I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours.  You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.

here you go again i, and MANY others including the real satoshi never said slow internet users dont have the right to run a node. your making that crap up about "no rights"

seriously.. go take your social game word twisting flip flops and use that time to actually learn stuff

what was said and is the general sentiment by those not in the centralist echo chamber. is that user nodes can be full nodes but not all users NEED to b full nodes connected to hundreds of others.
your echo chamber centralists have an agenda of wanting to deburden bitcoin of utility, by saying bitcoin is not fit for everyone.
my and many open minded mindsets are that bitcoin can be used by anyone, but that people can have varying levels of utility.

and if the internet speed is slow theres no NEED to try being a supernode connected to hundreds of others. as it hlps no one by going up so high. its far better to themselves and everyone to set their settings appropriately to be connected. but do so efficiently
(doomad learn the difference between no help by being up so high connection count.. vs your blurred vision thinking that it means no help whatsover to even be on the network...
thats where you got things wrong. you wrongly thought it meant no hlp to the network at all.. the reality is no bnfit to go extreme.. there is a difference.. try learning it)

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..

*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*

How many users are changing the setting up, franky1?  How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion?  Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?  

I'm not buying it.  You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion.  You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:  

lol. you do realise the quote of pieter. was from a blog, where the original poster was trying to increase his nodecount...
heres a hint. the title of that:
"How does one attain 1,000+ connections like blockchain.info?"

as for my distain for core. thats about distain for centralism and lack of diversity..
again you love centralism, so stop your flip floppy trying to insinuate that im in the same camp as you.
sorry but no. YOUR the centralist. you love core dominance. you love how users follow CORES rules.
im for DIVERSITY where there are DIFERENT BRANDS of full nodes so people have choices

(pre-empt your reply:
doomad will say, 'if you dont like cores rules f**k off to another network
ill say: 'diversity is about different brands on same network where consensus ensures core dont just be dictators/tyrants in control..
but have to be byzantine generals of a level playing field. finding a fair balance of consensus where diversity finds agreement... which is what bitcoins/blockchains original invention/innovation/lightbulb revolutionary new consept was all about)

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  

[/quote]

insults? again lets word count your post history, vs mine for actual insults. see who actually does the real insults.
my comments about users are just following core rules is just that. core have plopped themselves at the core of the network, called themselves the core and reference client, done loads of social drama stuff to keep themselves at the center and thus now there is not really any diversity in the network

even you yourself have spoke loudly about how you would love to REKT core opposers, you admired cores actions about pushing out a few opposing bips.  

You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing.  Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network.  It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks.  Funny coincidence, that.    

whether a node is connected to 1000 others or just 2. changes nothing in regards to tru honest consensus.
users finding a setting level that lets then be full nodes without causing their own 'bandwidth issues' cries changes nothing about their consensus level.

but again. you are just a social flip flopper who knows nothing about the bitcoin network even after i nicely asked you months to try researching it.

...........................
anyway
seems doomad cant get the hint about which way he wants to flip or flop. and will never take the time to do some independant thinking.
so lets move on
..........
summary
usernodes:mining nodes:merchants have a symbiotic relationship. they ALL validate.
however they all can choose their level of NEED.
EG if there are 1 billion humans using bitcoin. not all 1 billion NEED/WANT to be full nodes. in no way should they be forced to being full nodes with 100+ connections just so some centralist group can shout "the network cant handle it, move everyone off the network"

instead users can choose to lower their setting/involvement as they please. EG slow internet users dont need 100-1000 connections and many devs even going back as far as 2009 have said it too.

but to have a certain group echoing how bitcoin cant scale because of lame reasons that can easily be fixed by settings changes.. is not the right ploy to then promote alternative networks.

its far better to allow settings to change so that it increases utility. unlike a certain group who want users to get pushed off the network if their opinion doesnt match CORES roadmap of centralised commercial networks

[figmentofmyass]

I find it interesting ,
that the difference between a Block Validation and a Transaction Verification is beyond many people's understanding.
And these very same morons , keep repeating nonsense, claiming others need to research, (when they are the stupid ones)
Well their is nothing to research and you morons are only going to fool the unknowing.

If any of these people even bothered to read Wright's article , it is apparent a non-mining node is irrelevant for network validation.
They want to attribute some magic nonsense to a non-mining node, that does not exist ,
confusing personal verification of transactions and economic blackmail with what a mining node does which is validation of a previous block, when new blocks are created.

it sounds like you're just confusing two different activities. obviously non-mining nodes don't play any active role in block creation. but block creation is only one part of the system. there's an entire incentive system at play where miners are forced to mine honestly. if they don't, their blocks will be ignored by the network (of non-mining nodes) and they'll have wasted money mining worthless blocks. non-mining nodes are a much, much, much bigger part of the network than mining nodes. hence their importance in enforcing the rules.

Notice their confusion keeps pointing to outside issues.
While they ignore the simple facts ,
turn off the mining nodes and the network dies, as no new blocks are created and no old blocks can be validated thru increased confirmations.

only if the drop in hash rate is so severe that difficulty never readjusts. that is the potential downfall of the network.

if difficulty adjusts, it will correct to make mining profitable again. rationally, that means people will mine bitcoin. and then non-mining nodes will keep pressuring miners to mine honestly, just like before.....

[Wind_FURY]

I believe some of the wrong information in the thread, and in the forum, is very deliberate. New accounts, old accounts, all spreading lies, and half-truths.

Or maybe they truly don't understand how the Bitcoin network works.

[hv_]

khaos read some code

Little secret for you, You are always trusting someone else,
Run a non-mining node and you are trusting the Mining Nodes that you sync with.
Connect to two different block explores and you are trusting the Mining Nodes, they sync with.
Either way , you're trusting the Mining Nodes.  

^ wrong

little secret. learn orphan, learn reject, learn consensus, learn honest nodes, learn symbiosis, learn byzantine generals.

if you sent me a block i can reject it if it doesnt fit the rules.. i dont blindly accept it
if i see out of 8 peers that 6 are showing blockheight 600,000 and 2 are showing blockheight 599,500
im gonna grab data from the 6 nodes that are at 600,000.
and then im gonna do my own checks, my own validations and only trust the data i find that is valid
i do not just grab the data and pass it on.

seriously go read some code or get a better node if all you have is a relay/repeater node (much like fibre)

lets word it another way
mining nodes are the U.S Fed Mint.. one day they accidently put pink ink into the printers instead of green. and then send out pink bank notes.

non minting users dont just accept it. they check the note see its not green and reject it.
soon enough mining nodes realise they screwed up and certain serial number range is invalid, they orphan out that serial number pink notes and again start the serial number range using green ink

if they carried on with pink ink. shops would just wait for the green bank notes and reject pink notes. because everyone is under the understanding that only green inked notes are tender.

you are foolish if you think mining nodes can just mint what they like and users accept it.
you really need to do some research.
read code.. not reddit/twitter/medium

...
i think the context of the medium article your misunderstanding is this

in 2009-2011 a "full node" done dozens of jobs
in 2011-2012 a "full node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and things like CG miner done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "pool node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and ASIC done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "non mining node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs

the misunderstanding is that calling nodes after 2011 a full node.. is less than accurate. because no nodes do the full job list. different things work symbiotically to get the whole list complete but no single node does it all, thus the terminology of "full node" becomes vague

but that DOES NOT mean that non-mining nodes do not validate and decide. and does not mean in a 'honest node' consensus network that non-mining nodes are not part of the symbioses.

without non mining nodes to be the auditors of mining nodes. people end up having to BLINDLY trust mining nodes.
mining nodes without non-mining nodes would then be on a central rampage of doing as they please knowing merchants blindly trust mining nodes.

but the reality is bad blocks do get rejected, orphaned by user nodes and if repeat offending active rules the nodes sending out offending rulebreaking data get banned.

learn about the symbioses of consensus on a honest node network
read some code. not medium/reddit/twitter

We can all learn a lot in that interview here https://badcryptopodcast.com/2019/02/20/craig-wright-242/

And "honest mining" you can only learn from reading the specs of it, the White Paper.

[franky1]

We can all learn a lot in that interview here https://badcryptopodcast.com/2019/02/20/craig-wright-242/

And "honest mining" you can only learn from reading the specs of it, the White Paper.

learn alot?
more like dismiss alot.
CW has not been involved since 2009, id say he got involved ~2011-13
CW is not a computer scientist. he admits he cant even manage a linked-in page
CW cant even write a client from scratch
he didnt flee australia due to doxxing, he fled to avoid court trouble and contacted gizmodo to doxx himself
CW doxxed himself in 2015 setting up his drama after getting into aussie tax trouble trying to use fame as a 'proof of id' ruse to use as a get out of trouble ploy

anyway CW should not even be used as a source of info as he is just playing with with an altcoin
best thing is to read and understand the code and things like how byzantine generals theory and consensus play out (before core trojan edited it)

CW is a flip flopper, like many others. he grabs satoshi quotes to pretend he is satoshi(anon-anarc-inventor-libertarian/socialist) but then CW says other things that show he is a (public-legal-capitalist)

ontopic
oh and by the way CW tripped.
when h talked about a block that was just over 1mb(before segwit) that got rejected. he (falsly) claimed that only miners picked up the block and rejected it.
this was not the case.

many nodes were set to get a block header/block and relay it out and then calculate values/validate signatures, compare it to block hash and all the other multiple checks and then reject it out of their node in about 2 seconds when seen as bad. which happened.

and thus when the next block comes along they can then see which block is being built on which block and if being built ontop of the rejected block, orphan off that as the child(youngest/newest) block is building on the wrong path/branch

if the seeder peer keeps sending you that same rejected block. then eventually your node would ban the node as a spammer

much like the bug found in 0.17 which if nodes never got bad blocks, then the bug found wouldnt be a issue but in a indepentant relay and validation network a block with the bug would have caused issues


what some believe(wrongly) should be the case is that pools should only talk to themselves first. and reject, before passing anything out to mattblues FIBRE initial validator node to validate and then relay it using the main FIBRE relay ring network only what mattblue deems as fine, again before the bitcoin node network, thus the main bitcoin nodes only get valid blocks

the issue with not even letting nodes have a chance to reject is that they are then become just sheep to their seeding peer which they just leach from.
which is where this topics myth is all about
the central group want it to be a central group where nodes have no independent thought/function and thats the bit where CW is talking using his capitalist-legal mind and twisting the original bitcoin decentralised independence of anarc-libertarian-socialist real function of bitcoin nodes

anyway my node got the block of just over 1mb and rejected it in 2 seconds. and would have got blocks which if created with the latest bug, would have rejected that too.

in essence. if your node has not seen a reject or a orphan when you check your log file then your node is a sheep archival node thats not part of the main relay/validation network and not the latest symbiotic function 'full node' but instead just a downstream node