More from my site
- Even with 11,000 full (secure) nodes, Zencash was 51% attacked for a mere $20,000 worth of hashrate last week. Just goes to show that full nodes don’t secure the network, miners do.
- Bigger blocks do not cause increased mining centralization, miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. This is a type of free market of pools, or a form of representative democracy for miners. I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds, changing my vote.
- Reina Nakamoto: In the Bitcoin Whitepaper a node means a specific thing: It’s a mining node. Aka in the Whitepaper, all nodes mined. There was no concept of what BTC community describes as their "validating full nodes (that don’t mine)". In WP: There were just mining nodes and SPV wallets.
- 0-conf together with SPV is the secret power which makes the original Bitcoin model so revolutionary. The BCore model which requires sidechains and people running their own full "verifying" nodes… on their toasters completely misses the genius of the old model.
- Cognitive dissonance amongst BTC supporters: “We should not raise block limit from 1 MB cause people in third worlds can’t afford to run a full node.” and “Bitcoin is also not for people who make less than $2/day.”
- The one highest priority of any dev team right now needs to be an automatically adaptable blocksize limit or its full removal. Compromise is fine, but leaving it in is risking the network. Miners need to realize that quotas are not in their interests.