Here's the most common definition of "analogy":


Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did:


Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.


That's the problem. You've done nothing to establish that your analogies are remotely accurate; you repeat them ad nauseum, but that doesn't make them any more than baseless opinions.

You claim that nodes are irrelevant to network security, yet you ignore all the evidence that they are not. Instead of refuting my arguments, you construct these bizarre analogies with no basis in reality, on the basis of opinion. The fact is that they are completely inaccurate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.


Right. Instead of debating the points made, you level personal attacks, as usual, without ever once making a substantive argument. The only time I copy-pasted was when you repeatedly stated the burden of proof was on me, while simultaneously ignoring all evidence I provided. So I re-quoted some of it for you, in hopes that you would address it. You, of course, did not. Simply ignoring everything your opponent says is not adequate to declare victory.


...And? I'm happy to mitigate ignorance around here. That both of you state that "nodes are irrelevant to security" as a given, without addressing the mountain of evidence that they are not, does nothing to suggest that it's true.


Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you? 


It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?