{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e You make a logical fallacy;\n\u003e\n\u003e I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that\n\u003e they have no trust-relationship with.\n\u003e\n\nYay, trust!\n\n\n\u003e But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to\n\u003e run\n\u003e one discards your own point.  You forget the point that running a node is\n\u003e only\n\u003e needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you.  I'm\n\u003e pretty\n\u003e darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it\n\u003e is.\n\u003e\n\nI never said it is the only factor that influences node count.\n\nOr, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the\n\u003e difficulty of why there aren't more running.\n\u003e\n\nIf the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the\ncost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the\necosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental\nimprovement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe\nthat with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute\nterms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite\ntrend, and that is worrying IMHO.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/76c1ddc9/attachment.html\u003e"}