Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 08:50:45 AM

Wonderful. Only pools can get to tell if an entry is fake or not. Completely decentralized and trustless, as envisioned. Roll Eyes

At the beggining the vast majority was mining nodes . It was the only time that bitcoin was decentralised by your definition , thousands for nodes . The consensus is bitcoin is called proof of work , not proof of most nodes . And to pose a question like the one you said about blocksize , what's the optimal amount for nodes to make a network decentralised ? Is it 10's , is it 100's , is it millions ? And i'd like to see the arguments on your thesis .

Pools are the only entities that add transactions into a block , so there can't be any fake entries into a solved block .
How many blocks have you added to the chain with your node ? How many blocks with fake transactions have you find ? If it's at least one than yes , i'm wrong and you're right .

Quote

You can't fully validate a transaction with merely the merkle trees. Related: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/32533/134811

So , by you logic , why the merkle tree is needed ? If i have all the blocks , merkle tree is almost useless , right ? if so , let's disable them , core is very good at disabling parts that thinks are useless .

Quote

Quoting a Satoshi post doesn't make it ideal. You need arguments, like these: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/37303/134811

The creators thought of how things should be done isn't ideal , that's nice . As for the arguments of the post you shared , these are complete BS . Initial blocksize was 32 MB and there was a reason at the time that 1MB was imposed .

Quote

Every participant of the Bitcoin network contributes to decision-making processes. Some with authority (miners), others with technical competence (developers) and the rest of the users through running software, doing governance proposals, expressing their preferences and concerns, and of course being stakeholders.

By decision making i mean what transactions will be added into a block and keep building the chain .

Quote from: vjudeu on Today at 01:11:04 PM

It happened. Read about SPV mining, where mining pools started to mine blocks, without validating them, and how they lost their money, because there were enough full nodes to notice that they are building blocks on top of the invalid chain. And imagine that if we would have a lot of nodes blindly trusting the UTXO set, then it could stay unnoticed, and get deeply confirmed.

Also, there are cases, where pools lost their reward, because of things like sigops limit. By having only UTXO set, you cannot check such things, because then you don't have access to all scripts, you only know that some UTXOs should be changed to some other UTXOs.

What you mention only affects a mining pools that decided to lose their reward . To achieve a consensus in pool level the majority of honest pools decide if a block is valid or invalid , following the rules . If someone decided to just waste energy to propagate an invalid block that was rejected from the start at pool level , than good for him . Anyone can decide in what way can spend his money .
You have to understand that pools are interconnected , it is crucial for pools to have the new block as fast as possible to work on it for the next block . That block was rejected instantly from pools , even if it was still propagated to other non mining nodes who thought that they did find an invalid block . Think about it and you'll see that what "full nodes" saw had nothing to do with what pools decided from the begining . Pools are the entities that have the most economic interest to be honest . Pools that try to trick the system get their blocks rejected , so they are just burning money .