rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > You make a logical fallacy; > > I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that > they have no trust-relationship with. > Yay, trust! > But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to > run > one discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is > only > needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm > pretty > darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it > is. > I never said it is the only factor that influences node count. Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the > difficulty of why there aren't more running. > If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite trend, and that is worrying IMHO. -- Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/76c1ddc9/attachment.html>