Is it true that only economic nodes are important? Can a situation explained in this article happen and our nodes (not economical) can't do nothing about?
He had to use the term "economic" nodes, why, I have no clue, it's full nodes and that's all that is to it. And if the situation is this one:
Some big miners decide that it’s time for bigger blocks, because more transactions mean more fees in total.
The two big economic nodes think that this is a good idea, as cheap transactions are good for business.
The idle nodes don’t like that and threaten to not accept bigger blocks.
no, it will not happen.
There are no
big economical nodes and small idle nodes, I'm amazed this article comes from the guy that makes bitbox, and here is one of his articles where he advertises that and suddenly forgets everything about big economic nodes, just look at all his other articles:
To preserve the decentralized nature of this monetary system, I think it is important that everybody can run their own trustless Bitcoin node, preferably on cheap hardware like a Raspberry Pi.
Bottom line, to address your question, yeah full nodes are important, every single node out there is, there is security in numbers in case of a sybil attack for example that would cripple communications between legit nodes in case of a large one (highly improbable at current numbers).
But really, rather than this kind of attack, I'm more concerned why some people who obviously have enough knowledge on this subject would write this kind of articles, normally I would call it shilling for their product but it's so misleading I don't think it bring a positive even for their gear. Weird.