{"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 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the\n\u003e \u003e cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's\n\u003e fundamental\n\u003e \u003e improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe\n\u003e \u003e that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute\n\u003e \u003e terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite\n\u003e \u003e trend, and that is worrying IMHO.\n\u003e\n\u003e And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.\n\u003e\n\nOf course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin\nsecure and immune from malicious influence.\n\nOf course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the\nresponsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making\nit too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way\nthrough which we do that.\n\nIf the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to\nkeep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/96f446eb/attachment.html\u003e"}