But now i got into a lot of discusssions with these BCH/SV guys and not 100% anymore 
How does a full node prevennt double spending, its accepting the longest chain no matter what no ?
How does a full node prevennt double spending, its accepting the longest chain no matter what no ?To be fair, even full nodes owned by miner can't prevent double spend unless they increase their hashrate to make sure attacker have less than 51% of total bitcoin hashrate.
Non-Mining Nodes don't validate anything,
they only RELAY blocks according to their consensus rules, they don't validate anything at all.
Which is why non-mining nodes don't really matter and their is no security advantage to having more non-mining nodes.
Only Mining Nodes can Validate, when they add an additional block , they validate the previous block.
Only Mining Nodes Matter.
they only RELAY blocks according to their consensus rules, they don't validate anything at all.
Which is why non-mining nodes don't really matter and their is no security advantage to having more non-mining nodes.
Only Mining Nodes can Validate, when they add an additional block , they validate the previous block.
Only Mining Nodes Matter.
Then prove it by make block which don't follow consensus rules (lower hashrate used, bigger block reward, use signature besides ECDSA/secp256k1 or bigger output value than input value on transaction), but accepted by non-mining full nodes client on default configuration
125 connections might be a bit too much for a poor 1mbps down 300ish kbps up link...
Obviously, especially because broadcast overhead and send blocks to syncing nodes aren't counted yet.