undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJCharante2y ago0 comments

1. People in developing countries aren't running nodes nor do they need to

2. Most people, even today, use light wallets.

> Since Bitcoin doesn't have state commitments, it's much less safe to use light clients, and increasing the bandwidth also shifts the balance more towards running light clients, compromising users' trust in the network

3. Everybody except whales already uses light wallets. Even downloading the ledger in 2014 took a long long time.

> And consider that full nodes don't only download blocks, they have to rebroadcast them to (ideally) at least 2 other nodes in order for blocks to even propagate at a decent rate.

4. Rebroadcasting 8MB is nothing

> Making it more difficult to run fully verifying nodes like this is another centralization force.

5. Verification nodes aren't as important as miners and mining basically requires a lot of money put into ASICs so the system is already designed against the hobbyist enthusiast contributing to the network on their bedroom.

> Also, you should read about induced demand.

6. What's the point of a system if it can't scale?

0 comments

treyd2y ago

The core misunderstanding you have here is about the role of miners. The game theory that makes blockchains safe to use in a untrusted distributed fashion is that anyone can just look at the chain and be convinced it's correct under its own logic. If most users are just relying on third parties to tell them about the blockchain then they can't be sure of its correctness. And that gives power to miners to collude between themselves and service providers to just change the consensus rules as they see fit, including in ways that are detrimental to the broader user.

And why shouldn't people in developing countries run full nodes? Are you saying it's fine for them to be dependent on service providers in rich countries that can then control/surveil their activity?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse