rich1.0npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 19.09.30 Pieter Wuille wrote: > > 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. I see a pretty big problem if this really is your insight, the need an individual has for running a node is a completely different concept than the need for nodes to exist. And, really, you are describing miners, not nodes. good thing is that you seem to agree with me as your continue with; > Of course not everyone needs to run a node. Thats the 'need' I was talking about. As we concluded in our previous email, the need to run a node is inversely proportional to the ability (or willingness) to trust others. And lets face it, practically everyone trusts others with their money today. > 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. That won't really have any influence, economics 101 says that it doesn't work that way. Lowering the cost on a product won't make it sell more without the people wanting or needing the product. > If the impact of the system goes u[p], so should the - joint - incentives to > keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that. That is your opinion. At least, I don't see that conclusion supported by evidence. I'll defer to Gavins emails that countered this point better. -- Thomas Zander