Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 07:16:46 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 05, 2020, 09:57:41 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 05, 2020, 08:56:29 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 05, 2020, 06:54:54 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 09:06:11 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 01, 2020, 02:51:31 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 01:23:10 PM

Quote from: hv_ on October 01, 2020, 08:46:07 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Quote

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

Quote

- Snip -

Are you trolling? Roll Eyes

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ? And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?

Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?