{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 19.09.30 Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e \u003e And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin\n\u003e secure and immune from malicious influence.\n\nI see a pretty big problem if this really is your insight, the need an \nindividual has for running a node is a completely different concept than the \nneed for nodes to exist.  And, really, you are describing miners, not nodes.\n\ngood thing is that you seem to agree with me as your continue with;\n\n\u003e Of course not everyone needs to run a node. \n\nThats the 'need' I was talking about.\nAs we concluded in our previous email, the need to run a node is inversely \nproportional to the ability (or willingness) to trust others.\nAnd lets face it, practically everyone trusts others with their money today.\n\n\n\u003e But that leaves the\n\u003e responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making\n\u003e it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way\n\u003e through which we do that.\n\nThat won't really have any influence, economics 101 says that it doesn't work \nthat way.  Lowering the cost on a product won't make it sell more without the \npeople wanting or needing the product.\n\n\u003e If the impact of the system goes u[p], so should the - joint - incentives to\n\u003e keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.\n\nThat is your opinion. At least, I don't see that conclusion supported by \nevidence.\nI'll defer to Gavins emails that countered this point better.\n\n-- \nThomas Zander"}