Hunh? I was always a BU shill.
FTFY.
Go fuck yourself. A 'shill' is an advocate for hire. Nobody but me pays me for my advocacy of BU. I have fat stacks of Bitcoin, and want what is best for the system. Addocrdingly, I advocate -- on my own dime, mind you -- for BU.
I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.
Which is complete nonsense.
Wallow in your ignorance. If it were not for the fact that your misunderstanding causes you to take a wrong-headed stance on architectural directions for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care.
But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.
No.
Care to refute what he clearly wrote? Or do you just know better then he/she?
So you know better than Satoshi?
The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true
Orly? Bitcoin is irredeemably broken? Then why do you expend so much effort upon it?
(ASICBOOST,
Explain to me how this efficiency gain is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that nothing stops a true attacker from using ASICBOOST against us.
AntBleed,
Explain to me how this misguided feature is dishonest. Bear in mind that there have been exactly zero reports of it being used.
empty blocks
Explain to me how mining empty blocks is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that it has always been the miners' discretion to include in a block what the miner cares to.
Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified.
Bullshit. It would remain true regardless. External circumstances do not affect the veracity of an independent claim.
The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes.
Bullshit. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse is the ability of the users to abandon the chain, leaving it worthless.
Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs
Your ignorance is showing again:
"
At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
- Satoshi Nakamoto
Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin.
...aaand you fail to understand capitalism. If everyone else abdicates their power by refusing to compete with Bitmain, that is not anything you can blame on Bitmain. Don't destroy one of the greatest innovations of our lifetime in order to tilt the playing field. Get in there and build something.
You lost all credibility when you said Antbleed was a misguided feature. A nuclear weapons in the hands of someone is a deterrent and a threat and doesn't need a record of being used. I doubt you'd want North Korea to have a stock pile of Nuclear Weapons when they have zero record of using them in attacks.