@Dino,
I know, I won the argument and you lost.
Logic gives me the ability to determine reality from your personal delusions.
I have come to understand your reasoning is completely flawed, when your ego is involved.
See that is the advantage to being logical instead of emotional,
I won the argument and you can never accept it, so there is no point to listening to your future whining on that subject ,
any response you want to make from now on relating to that subject is always this post. (The one that proved you wrong.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1744718.msg17498545#msg17498545
I know, I won the argument and you lost.
Logic gives me the ability to determine reality from your personal delusions.
I have come to understand your reasoning is completely flawed, when your ego is involved.
See that is the advantage to being logical instead of emotional,
I won the argument and you can never accept it, so there is no point to listening to your future whining on that subject ,
any response you want to make from now on relating to that subject is always this post. (The one that proved you wrong.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1744718.msg17498545#msg17498545
Zero argument in this post.
The post you link to is no argument against my statement, because it starts with the premise that the *users* are not in agreement with the *bad miners*, an assumption that I explicitly do not make. As I pointed out several times, each time that you think you have an argument for "non mining full nodes" to be "guardians of the rule set A", you give IN FACT an argument why it are USERS or MINERS that are the guardians of the rule set A (over the rule set B that the 'bad guys', that is to say, the miners and the users, actually want).
Until you explain me where my ultimate proof is logically flawed, you have lost the argument. My proof goes as follows: if you think that non-mining full nodes impose the rule set, and bitcoin is now running on rule set A with, if I'm not wrong, something like 6000 full nodes, then fire up 100 000 full nodes with rule set B on Amazon, and see how the network will now comply to rule set B, the vast majority of the "guardians of the rules" according to you.
My statement in that gedanken experiment is that your 100 000 nodes will not get one single block, and will certainly not enforce their rules on the network. As such, they have no power to do so.
All your arguments showed that full nodes DO INFORM their owners. But in as much as these informed people are not miners, or are not users (that is, they do not determine the market cap), this fact doesn't influence the consensus.
Essentially, the consensus is made between the miners (building the block chain, using their mining nodes) and the users (setting the market cap). How many OTHER full nodes are running that haven't anything to do with either, doesn't matter apart from some better network properties.