Quote from: inBitweTrust on February 20, 2015, 02:08:06 AM

Quote from: onemorebtc on February 20, 2015, 01:56:57 AM

i like the proposal that any node keeps some configurable amount of transactions (say 10% to be VERY conservative)

edit: afaik it should be enough if the hole blockchain is anywhere (bitcoin foundation?) to download from. with -rescan it should do the same? please correct me...

No, the people arguing against this hardfork do indeed have some valid concerns. We don't want one or a few centralized sources to store archival or reference full historical nodes for us to bootstrap pruned nodes or partial DHT based nodes.

Personally, I would want a large distribution of Full (non pruned ) nodes on different a wide distribution of ASNs and with many different competing groups of people with different interests.

We definitely do not want a central organization like a government or TBF controlling this.

The question is how much would be sufficient to secure the network because the mere fact that we have increased the blocksize limit to 20MB doesn't mean we have to sacrifice the values we share with the people against this hard fork?

my question was if the blockchain is retrieved from a central location (eg dropbox, bitcoin foundation, my http server) if it is still verifiable in a trustless manner.

if thats the case i dont see any problem with distributing it from a central location - as long as enough people keep a copy (atm i could store and distribute up to 2tb without problems on my rootserver - i expect that i can keep more in a few years [and yes i have a node])