rich1.0npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your > transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network > is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that > others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just > running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does > not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use. > > That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node > count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it > is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback. > But they are not the goal, just an indicator. 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. 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. Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the difficulty of why there aren't more running. >From another mail; On Thursday 6. August 2015 17.26.11 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks, > and find a non-controversial solution. This is a very political answer; it doesn't actually say anything since 'unnecessary' is a personal judgment. Everyone will agree with you, but that doesn't mean anything. -- Tom Zander