Quote from: DieJohnny on September 03, 2015, 08:14:39 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 03, 2015, 08:10:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 08:04:54 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 03, 2015, 08:02:32 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 07:59:24 AM

Sure, easy: Satoshi makes no distinction between miners and nodes.

How is this an error? The network is composed of nodes. Some nodes mine, some don't. (I could also be pedantic and say all nodes mine but some have zero hash power.) I don't see how this is an error.

This is absolutely an error because it ignores significant game theoric scenarios such as the one we are experiencing now which is that not all miners validate themselves their transactions causing the SPV mining fiasco we've recently experienced.

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't consider Satoshi's omission of a predication of SPV mining an "error in the white paper."

Quote

This is a perfect example of Bitcoin evolving in a way Satoshi did not think of.

I wasn't suggesting that Satoshi foresaw precisely how Bitcoin would evolve. I was just questioning your/(Danny's) claim that the white paper got "many details wrong." I'm not aware of a single detail the white paper "got wrong."

I agree that the fact Satoshi does not separate and account for node vs miner right now appears to be significant. Satoshi failing to account for the difference IS an error if not doing so jeopardize the whole model. So time will tell if he got this wrong.

Great point! I'll agree to your definition: we don't know yet whether his omission to differentiate mining from non-mining nodes was an error. If the difference between them harms the incentive structure enough that Bitcoin fails to provide (a) double-spend protection, and (b) censorship resistance, then and only then would I agree that it was an error in the design as described by the white paper.