But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings 
And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked?
And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked?
Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced.
All the
Quote
The latter is just an acknowledgment that nodes can be Sybils -- that node count, particular over the short term, is not the most realistic measure of node proportions among incompatible softwares. One indication that a Sybil attack is occurring right now: comparing to overall node counts 1 month ago, when there were no Classic nodes, 65% of Classic nodes are "new", i.e. not Core nodes switching to Classic, which is contrary to the larger trend in node health. The picture is further obscured by that fact that pseudonode (NotXT) was released for Classic, so presumably people are also actively spoofing Classic nodes with the intention of later shutting them down.
TL;DR: Bitcoin relies on "nodes [...] essential to security and decentralization," a mechanism both trivial to bypass/defeat by creating legit nodes on VM instances & spoofing.
Faith restored, sinking all my money into this shit
