doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.
Lie.
Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks. That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase. You've said on many occasions that you think we should get rid of the "wishy washy scaling factor" and just have everyone use a 4mb base weight, but you're the only one I've seen calling for that. If users wanted what you want, they wouldn't be running the code that supports SegWit. And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.
your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply
I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node. Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay. I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours. You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.
pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..
home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*
How many users are changing the setting up, franky1? How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion? Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?
I'm not buying it. You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion. You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:
yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed
As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network. Please keep calling them sheep. Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do. Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.
You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing. Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network. It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks. Funny coincidence, that.