Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2017, 07:53:34 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 26, 2017, 07:32:53 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2017, 06:16:37 AM

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle

you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.

My only agenda is to understand all the aspects of this kind of system.

Yes, I'm convinced, and I explained you why, "running a node" is a useless exercise, except for yourself. Not because I have an agenda, but because this is a logical consequence of a Proof of Work system.

Apart from "you have no clue" and "waffle waffle" your arguments are pretty weak.

Quote

if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you

My "rhetoric" are observations, and logical arguments. What is the real rhetoric:

"Proof of work systems are determined by those providing proof of work, and now they are, for obvious reasons, and also factually, a group of 5 - 14 entities"

Or:

"waffle waffle" and "you have no clue"

?

Which of both kinds of discourse is closest to "logical argument" and which one is closest to "rhetoric" ?