In addition let me tell you that by suggesting the use of a 3rd party wallet is simply denying one of the most important features of Bitcoin. The ability to keep your money and to be your own bank. Just because you can't afford to keep one computer plugged 24 hours per day. This must be one of the most stupidest ideas that I've seen on this forum.
How are you "your own bank" without actually having the banking software?? A private key does not a bank make! I can generate all sorts of keys and sign all sorts of messages; that doesn't mean I have money! The "most important feature" of bitcoin is the block chain: the full history of transactions and coin bases. Without this, your signed messages and private keys are for naught.
I don't think you can use the argument that the number of computers capable of running a full node will be declining, because if it ever does, it won't be any time soon.
This is false; the number is already
shockingly low. It can only get lower with an increase in the cost of maintaining a node.
Satoshi also envisioned ASICs dominating the network and being run in a more centralized manner, but many people forget that as well. Centralization is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the circumstances and if that centralization can be counterbalanced with the ability to quickly and decisively eliminate the negative forces of centralization, then I think that outweighs the risks.
This is false as well
i. Sure, many things benefit from centralization
ii, but the money supply is not one of them. And then you go on to say something that doesn't make sense.. What is the "counterbalance" to "quickly and decisively eliminate the negative forces of centralization?" You say this but fail to explain it. I see the risk in centralizing the full nodes; I don't see any benefit to it, especially when the same effect can be achieved via off-chain solutions that do not compromise the security of the network as a whole.
i :
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemThe proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote.
ii :
In which we discuss Datskovskiy's discussion of MPExJust so is the case with Bitcoins and markets : it makes perfect sense for the currency itself to be decentralized. It makes absolutely no sense at all for the marketplace to be decentralized. In fact, a decentralized market is about as much a market as a deenginized car is a car. The market is precisely where economic agents come together, that's what it does, it centralizes trade. Further, it is sensible for the currency itself to be as trustless as possible, and thus mechanisms that implement trustlessness are a net gain in that field. A market can never exist at all without trust, and so mechanisms that purportedly implement "trustlessness" are nothing but clunk in this field.