There is no doubt that validating nodes hold power. UASF proved that.
Well, no. It proves nothing, as the battle was never fought.
The original paradigm was the miners both did the hash work and the consensus validation.
Yup.
When the idea was 1 CPU 1 vote this meant both hasrate and consensus validation was distributed. Upon the advent of ASICS harshpower began to centralize among the producers of the hardware as well as the large ASIC farms that became the current day miners.
Are you about to tell me that Satoshi never foresaw a day where 'maintaing the chain was the job of specialized servers, allowing users to just be users'?
But protocol consensus was still something users did not need specialized hardware to validate/support. So that function branched off to be a list of users LAGER than those providing hashrate security.
More power to your imaginary sky cavalry.
Taking a sort of ad hominem stance by calling people who validate the protocol and transactions on the bitcoin network "irresponsible neckbeard hobbyists unable to make the proper life choices to enable them to leave mommy's basement" is not helpful or realistic IMHO.
Well, it's not so much that the majority of fully-validating non-mining clients are run by economically useless riffraff, it is more the fact that the network is dumbed down to the point that economically useless riffraff govern the capacity of the system.
If you can't see how futile that is, god help us all.
Hmm. Well I think we are at an impasse. We always were though.
I think the more nodes the better and do not care who runs them primarily. I believe that that is exactly what decentralized minimized governance looks like and it is messy and slow moving.
You want nodes to be run by some sort of technocratic elite who will govern us all with what they decide the limitation, or removal thereof will be.
.