Nostr Web Client

Unpopular and may be at the same time popular opinion on the block size argument related to the ability for everyone to run a full node being necessary for #Bitcoin.

I am not for increase in the block size but I think this all plebs must be able to run a full node shit is the worst argument we have against it.

First space keeps getting cheaper. Second most "plebs" don't run a node already let alone a full node.

Lastly, do we really need all nodes running back to the genesis block. Pretty sure a pruned node that goes back say 5 years is honest as long as you CAN go all the way back if you want to.

This "we all need a node back to genesis" is a dumb argument. Once I have the next block I already trust it.

Have we ever retroactively fixed a 5 year old "error" in the chain? No. Will we ever, no. Do you ever think, I wonder if that transaction from 2016 is still valid, I had better check? No. Why? You understand the tech and are sane that is why.

When we make dumb arguments, we invite attack against our dumb arguments and make the oppositions job easier.

As always I tell anyone wishing to change BTC to get bent. It will change when consensus changes and when consensus changes it is still bitcoin, when it doesn't, it is a shitcoin fork. That is THE argument. That is the protocol layer argument.

Everything else is social, a popularity of ideas argument and those are stupid and always end badly. In a way BTC is like the early US, only the votes of property owners count. You ain't running a node, you don't get a vote.

BCH people are a perfect example, I don't know ONE BCH tard that runs a BCH full node, not one. I tell them you don't even vote in your own republic, fuck the hell off out of mine.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ShiShi21m 1y ago

Boomers just don't get it man,

The only way we can ENSURE that you can go back to the genesis block is for the PLEBS to make SURE because we're supposed to be PSYCHOPATHS / EXTREMISTS.

If you don't run a node & you are able to - you're NOT A PLEB. You just own Bitcoin.

Also, pruned nodes don't share in the validation of blocks. He probably doesn't understand that part - or if he does he's willfully ignoring that fact.

nostr:nevent1qqsxdygx027cy5k4k840dlyrt34srurk547hny54zq5p09h3xeqp5gspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzpg0uth7hll84v0yfz4d5ve63kkqdz90pxm303jgw3yfnska7mvw0qvzqqqqqqy8h92vj

Lucid 1y ago

We do need the full nodes as well because from them nodes can be born. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think pruned nodes can come from pruned nodes.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

You are correct, I am not opposed to a full node and I run well two actually.

My point is this social argument is a moronic argument. If it costs 5X over right now to run a full node most already running one would still do it.

Running a node is something people do because they want to. People spend a lot more than the cost of a big SSD on tons of shit just because they want it. This is no different.

Our argument about the cost of storage is as stupid as the BCH shitcoiners arguments about this mythical "poor person in Africa" in the middle of a desert that can't use LN because they can't afford an LN node.

Lucid 1y ago

I think we need to keep a base/ foundation of full nodes and have the majority pruned for efficiency

BaronBurdock 1y ago

I run a full node because its cheap, and why not, but I've always thought this. I'm curious what the counter argument is, because at some point doesn't it get ridiculous? Shaming people for running pruned nodes with ONLY 25 years of history and not going 100 years back or something crazy like that.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

For some yes it is that idiotic.

I am back to the protocol argument, it is all about consensus.

nobody 1y ago

How a pruned node is supposed to verify transactions which spend UTXOs older than 5 years?

wertyyryyr 1y ago

Not all plebs must run a full node, but making it easier and cheaper for more people to run a node is good.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

Be honest what % of plebs run a node now? If it cost 50 bucks more to run one, how many less would.

Also you are back to a SOCIAL argument.

wertyyryyr 1y ago

50 bucks is some poor countries is a lot of money, and need more node runners, the more the merrier. What happens if black rock sets 200.000 nodes and we have too little?

Jack Spirko 1y ago

You just sent BCH shit coiner with the mythical poor person in Africa argument against LN.

Social arguments always hinge on hypothetical bullshit.

wertyyryyr 1y ago

No it's the opposite and it's about math not social, small blocks it's cheaper to make a node making tx on chain more expensive and an incentive to use LN.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

Did you read me argue against small blocks at all in this thread? Even one time?

And notice how you shifted your argument?

Do you know why you shifted it? Because you started from a social argument, which will keep you shifting until you fall to a fully logical one. Storage space is one of the most deflationary technologies we have it and will keep getting cheaper. Unlike ASICs that have ONE PURPOSE, SSDs have tens of thousands of uses.

In 10 years a 50TB drive will likely cost less than a steak and a potato. The argument is dumb. The poverty stricken person first has almost no BTC anyway and already does NOT and likely NEVER WILL run a node.

But this argument is iron clad, "Bitcoin is a protocol, it has a specified means of change, that means is consensus. Run a node/mine and participate in consensus. If you don't get your way in a BIP, STFU and move along or FORK OFF away from us".

There is no response to that other than fallacies and pleadings and other shitcoiner bullshit. We have the fortified high ground, why the fuck should we go down into the valley and expose weak flanks?

Jack Spirko 1y ago

nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev see above, I'd love your thoughts on this, since I took some of it (a single word "social") from you.

Brian 1y ago

They could do that now if they wanted. It wouldn't matter because they'd have a massive network of only their nodes running a fork of bitcoin. As long as we're running our nodes for our bitcoin transactions, it doesn't matter.

wertyyryyr 1y ago

The question then is if they would be able to have the timechain with more hashing power or not. If yes it will be centralized and without freedom and all development would leave, at least good and open source development. They will probably try something like that, in partnership with some big miners. I still think that promoting more node runners is essentially a good thing and it must be as cheapest as possible, because besides hardware there's also internet GB costs. In Europe it's possible to run a node on a 4G router, but not everywhere.

Brian 1y ago

Why would all of the hashers switch their power to mine on Black rocks newly spun up fork? All the other bitcoiners they ever met are on OG bitcoin.

wertyyryyr 1y ago

Because "they have the guns"

Brian 1y ago

Guns only work when you know where to point them

Nyoro~n 1y ago

Any pleb that wants to know the Bitcoin they have truly belong to them needs to run a full node. There's no exceptions to this, just misunderstanding

Sovran Systems 1y ago

I say run your own node.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

Okay, and?

Sovran Systems 1y ago

Running your own full node (now days the tools are great and the hardware is reasonable for most folks to obtain) is a key to that sovereignty as it keeps the full blockchain redundant and allows a more trustless experience in one's financial life. Running a full node still has benefits that out way the conveniences.

Jack Spirko 1y ago

Oh do you basically mean what I said? Not clear on what point you are making. Not being a dick here, just looking for clarity.