rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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. > > And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor. > Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence. Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way through which we do that. If the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that. -- Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/96f446eb/attachment.html>