Quote from: aliashraf on Today at 05:05:04 PM

Quote from: amishmanish on Today at 04:41:42 PM

I think this is again pretty much a question of what you think bitcoin is. A lot of people out there think a lot of things about what bitcoin is and there are claims from con-marketeers about "Real Bitcoin" "True Vision" etc etc. If you feel that we CAN trust miners, media can be believed to disseminate trustworthy information, full nodes are not needed etc etc. then there are plenty of other centralized scaling approaches out there.

If we take all these issues on privacy, trust on miners, media etc for granted then you are not in agreement with the privacy and security model of bitcoin made possible because of full nodes.

I think you are now somehow agitated by the previous embracing post of the fake Asterisk id, aren't you? it is what they do, they trigger anxiety and push buttons, be careful.

No, I am actually trying to understand the argument you are making and seems to me that you take a lot of things on good faith for the game theory to work. In the replies above, you have repeatedly said that miners will be kept in check because "community", "media" will know as soon as anything happens. But this has to be detected right? That is what a full node does and in a decentralized system we need more of them.

You then say that SPV nodes are sufficient for this which they clearly are not. SPV nodes themselves rely on full nodes for consensus verification. The only case that possibly stands is that of the network relying on pruned nodes rather than archival full nodes. I am still reading on this pruned nodes vs archival full node comparison in how one is better than the other for the network.

When we are talking about benefits of propagation among non-mining nodes in case mining nodes become unreliable, you said that full nodes are not necessary for propagation too as SPV nodes can provide the network service. But, the important thing is they DO NOT validate. We can agree that SPV nodes aren't much use to the network per se, except for being an easy way to provide wallet services to individual users without downloading the full blockchain.

I am also convinced that in its present state, the network of full nodes is still the best D-day option we have. You took a tangent to your old proposals in denying that but well, an idea is just an idea. It cannot be used to refute the actual requirements for bitcoin network.

Quote from: aliashraf on Today at 05:05:04 PM

Alienating scaling/mass-adoption/decentralization proposals by spreading FUD about PoW is an alien discourse and has nothing to do with bitcoin white paper.

This is a loaded political statement regarding the bitcoin developers and i personally don't agree with it, whatever my opinion counts for. IMO, there is no "True Vision" in bitcoin whitepaper that needs a zealous following. Satoshi wouldn't have shared his humongous work on a public forum to cypherpunks all over the world in an easy to modify repository if he thought that "his whitepaper" is the end-all for everything.