Quote from: danielpbarron on March 20, 2015, 02:28:12 PM

If you're gonna just go trusting people, then why do you need your transaction on the block chain? The block chain is for when you don't trust anyone. You are arguing in favor of what amounts to security theater. People are worse off if they think simply having a private key is what makes their funds safe. Instead of them trusting a node to relay their petty transactions, they can just as well trust a bitcoin denominated bank to make a promise on their behalf. The banks can then settle balance differences in large chunks on a daily basis, thereby keeping the size of the block chain minimal. In this way, anybody can verify the process with an inexpensive node plugged into their home router. Whereas with your proposal, only a few wealthy people can verify the process despite everyone having access.

You have conceded that the common man will have to trust someone. Please stop with this nonsense that we must also make the block chain impossible for the common man to verify. It is not necessary to have both these results; only one is needed.

Since this is a consensus network used by everyone (big companies along with random private individuals) I think it is obvious to say that the small private user can get along with the consensus trust derived from the fact that those that have a bigger stake into blockchain will not allow history to be re-written. This is how we get to the whitelisted/blacklisted nodes.

I am thinking that BitPay or Coinbase is able to setup various full nodes all over the globe and the small users can whitelist their nodes so that they shouldn't worry that much about the blockchain being altered! In the Bitcoin ecosystem the security is the same for the big companies and for the small individual and a change in the blockchain history would affect both in the same time. The big companies will focus more on the blockchain security since they have much more to lose while the small guys can just leech the blockchain history from them.

I find this to be a very logic and productive way of working with this issue this instead of being a retard and simply banning those that can't afford to run a full node like your boss MP wants to do.

As previously said if you trust Google servers to host your Google Chrome copy then you will definitely trust Exchangers and Payment Processors to have an unaltered blockchain at everyone's disposal.

Quote from: Mikestang on March 20, 2015, 03:55:09 PM

Uhhh, there is no "full node requirement", there already exist a multitude of lightweight wallets that do not require you to d/l the block chain and there are thousands of trusted places these wallets look to, they're called full nodes; I think you're missing the point.

Pay attention to the full context/discussion please.

I know that there is no "full node requirement", but our friend here danielpbarron who is just Mircea Popescu's obedient dog is saying that anyone that isn't running a full node shouldn't use bitcoin which is utterly stupid and retarded and it will never happen. Here is where the discussion started:

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 18, 2015, 03:47:59 AM

If you aren't running a full node, you aren't using bitcoin! That's not me "forcing" anything; it's just a fact.

He is afraid that the US Government will seize "the whole thing" like he saw in the movies...

I would really like to see Russian nodes being seized by the US Gov. That would be something new.