Quote from: RoadStress on February 20, 2015, 06:10:11 AM

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

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 from.

So because people don't want to invest XXX$ for a X TB HDD you think that they have a valid concern?

The HD space is marginal and the greater concerns are with bandwidth costs. The cost to run a full node will likely increase from 20 usd a year to ~5 dollars a month for many people in the future. This isn't a lot of money but still may put further downward pressure upon the amount of nodes. This isn't unresolvable but we should be aware of it.

Quote from: RoadStress on February 20, 2015, 06:10:11 AM

How many miners do we need to secure the network? The answer is that we do not know, but we can make it very expensive and not efficient for someone to try to trick the system. Just like we did with mining where someone would need to invest a shitload of money in order to disrupt the network. It's simply not economical to do so. We can have it the same with the blockchain, but only if people stop being so against everything and start thinking of reasonable ways to deal with the problem.

Your not making a lot of sense here, most of these people in this thread all want what is best for bitcoin and we just disagree on the solution to get there. I have been discussing specific solutions to resolve this problem, and am trying to get more specifics as to what degree of security or decentralization people against the hard fork expect to move forward.
You suggest that we cannot know how many miners it takes to secure the network but this also isn't true as we can make very good estimates of the costs it takes to attack the network and what the risks are based upon the amount of hashing power.

Quote from: RoadStress on February 20, 2015, 06:10:11 AM

May I ask you what have you done about this? How many full nodes have you setup? Or you are just waiting for others to solve this issue? A decentralized consensus network needs to be sustained by everyone and everyone should be involved somehow. Waiting only for others to solve issues is not the correct way to do it. You/Everyone need/s to get involved instead of just complaining about various things. (btw this is not a personal attack. it's just a general speaking)

I have setup over a tremendous amount of full nodes and maintain multiple ones myself personally, not that any of that matters to the discussion at hand. Again , I am discussing specific proposals and trying to move this conversation along.

My questions are aimed at the people against this hardfork to understand what degree of decentralization and security which would make them comfortable as their primary concern deals with the risk of centralization and decrease of nodes.