Are blockchains truly distributed systems?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Yes? But in a "distributed blockchain network", it might the the opposite of "distributed", because every node must validate every participant's transactions/messages, taking the processing by themselves.

Have we misunderstood what it truly is?

Well it all depends on what the blockchain is for. There are numerous non-monetary blockchains that are used as an immutable database of 'things' that range from tracking food production, civil records and many many other things - for those the blockchain is by necessity a very centralized operation.

[Wind_FURY]

Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.

That didn't make any sense.

User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.

You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.

We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.

These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.

That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.

Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?

This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...

I believe you misunderstood. mda was posting about the miners having all blocks in a sharded-network, but "full nodes" having only to verify "their part" of the sharded-network? Do we stop trusting the consensus and trust the other nodes that have the other part of the sharded-network? To what benefit?

Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about

If you re out of sync and behind mining nodes you re even more in the sybil regime


only miners make blocks and if they don't verify they ll lose money


But still, where comes the real trust from - if there is at all ? From all the little anno sybils ?

Are you with the belief that the community should NOT run full nodes, NOT to verify the blockchain for themselves, and to TRUST the miners not to change the protocol? Isn't that FED 2.0? What would be the point of Bitcoin?

Yes? But in a "distributed blockchain network", it might the the opposite of "distributed", because every node must validate every participant's transactions/messages, taking the processing by themselves.

Have we misunderstood what it truly is?

Well it all depends on what the blockchain is for. There are numerous non-monetary blockchains that are used as an immutable database of 'things' that range from tracking food production, civil records and many many other things - for those the blockchain is by necessity a very centralized operation.

I believe you also misunderstood.

[Wind_FURY]

Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about

Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc. 

His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security?

[hv_]

Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about

Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc.  

His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security?

Nobody can remove anyone to run things for Bitcoin - this is sheer open for all, for good.

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

The open competition here ensures true and good enough distribution & trust over time

You might trust big telecoms, Google, Amazon, Apple ,... already 'enough' ? Or they would not exist...

[DooMAD]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

[hv_]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

[DooMAD]

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality.  Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds.  If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.


//EDIT:

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

Either you're trying to be funny and I'm not getting the joke, or you genuinely don't understand how weak your chain is.  In terms of raw hashrate, your preferred chain is a fly splattered across the windscreen of Bitcoin's 18-wheeler.  Even if your chain was compliant with regulators (and it isn't), you need to comprehend that regulators are in no position to help you when your chain gets attacked.

If you wish to continue promoting your forkcoin, please do so in the altcoins board where it belongs.

[hv_]

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality.  Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds.  If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

they ensure system is running for the globe at lowest fees to be max attractive

that's what I ve signed for

[Wind_FURY]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

[hv_]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

You are already in that game - good they are really professional and earn money regulated with that. ( sure, they can do lot of shit, cause things might be intransparent - esp money flows...)


Bitcoin is cool, cause it is so TRANSPARENT - not anno, so you can track all that crap / fix it in our legal ways we deved for thousends of year running societies - here is your trust

If you don t trust our legal system you might have problems with those - but Bitcoin lives in it. It can only help to debunk shit cause of transparent money / transaction flows - so get goverements to use it and the fun starts

[Wind_FURY]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

- Snip -

Are you trolling?

[hv_]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

- Snip -

Are you trolling?

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

[pooya87]

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

there are no "big open known registered competing mining corps". the biggest mining farms nowadays only have a small portion of the total hashrate and the security is always ensured by the distribution of the mining power (among other things) not by trusting that some corporations will always remain honest.

[BrewMaster]

Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database.

that is a bad way of putting it because it sounds a bit like the nodes are sharing the work when it comes to verification process. the system is decentralized because nodes don't rely on others and verify everything themselves.

[Wind_FURY]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

- Snip -

Are you trolling?

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.

Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database. Given that consensus is needed for actions to occur, it is a truly distributed system.

It's actually the opposite. Every single full node re-validates the everyone's transactions.

[hv_]

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion.  If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have).  But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network.  And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice.  You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions.  If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead.  Just don't expect others to tag along.  You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

- Snip -

Are you trolling?

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?  And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?

Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?

[Wind_FURY]

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?

As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.

Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?

[hv_]

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?

As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.

Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?

You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.

The globe reads that and trust that.

There is no way anything else is trustworthy and compliant with what Bitcoin defines from the start

bad things happened already and we are in the middle to watch how that plays out

[BrewMaster]

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?  And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?

Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?

it is not about hiding, it is about not being able to do anything about it. for example in a scenario where there isn't any nodes and there is a mining cartel, they could be bribed by some shitty exchange that got hacked to reverse a bunch of blocks just because that shitty exchange was incompetent and insecure and got hacked. there would be nothing anybody could do since there is no node in that scenario to reject their "less work" chain. this is not even hypothetical, it happened a while ago when Binance got hacked and tried bribing miners but wasn't successful.

the distribution of hash power and the authority of full nodes spread across the globe enforcing the rules prevents that.

[Wind_FURY]

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?

As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.

Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?

You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.

But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?

Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.