RT @giacomozucco: THANK YOU! This article lines up most of the things I think and I tried to convey about Bitcoin, articulated WAY better than I could possibly do myself, in proper English! Kudos to @Bob_le_chinois and many thanks! https://t.co/beKiaUeNYI
I don't think I went more than two sentences the whole write-up without running into something I totally disagree with for technical reasons. There seems to be only one real point, about validation difficulties. The rest was nonsensical anti-altcoin fluff.
The main point the article makes is that everyone must run a full node and extreme measures are needed to ensure that is easily possible. Contradicting this, Satoshi wrote that eventually only miners and large market players would run full nodes. I won't dismiss this wisdom carelessly. He envisioned that most normal users would use SPV to do only the validation relevant to them, instead of every user trying to gate-keep the entire Bitcoin protocol. This is because the consensus mechanism of Bitcoin is built around the protocol being secured by miners, with hashrate as proof of work.
Limiting Bitcoin's throughput to make it easier to validate blocks seems an extreme decision. Artificially limiting Bitcoin's throughput has core design side-effects like effecting the long term design of the block reward schedule, changing how transaction fees support mining, and severely limiting the usefulness of the actual Bitcoin blockchain. Sure Bitcoin will hit its natural limitation eventually regardless, thus finding the limit of its on-chain usefulness, and still finding the need for third party solutions. While third party solutions may take us closer to world currency or Visa throughput levels some day, these are some major decisions to be making with that focus this early. One should be careful of shooting their future winning in the foot, due to premature celebration.
If this is the strongest case for small blocks, then it is probably a bad idea.
> everyone \*must\* run a full node
I'd say the most prevalent opinion is that \*most should be able to\* run a full node. Not that everyone \*must\*. I want to run a full node because without running one I can't really make use of Bitcoin's "smart contract" features. I can't be sure miners aren't inflating the supply and I have to trust ppl with datacenters to relay my tx and preserve my privacy.
Bitcoin to me is about individual sovereignty, privacy, fixed supply and minimizing the need for externalized trust. Other coins just don't compare...
It's idiots like you that are a big part of the problem. Yes, I said idiots.
You admit to not reading the whole article, and yet you think it's OK to comment. You don't really understand what's going on, that much is clear from your post, and yet you think you're entitled to voicing your opinion. So this noise you're producing, because this is nothing but noise, gets on display for noobs to read and confuse themselves.
Repeat after me:
> "*SPVs as Satoshi envisioned them DO NOT EXIST.*"
No, I'm not going to explain why this is true. It is you who has to educate yourself on all these topics **before** starting to comment on issues you're not competent on. If you don't understand why that is true it just shows you're not competent. Which means nobody is dismissing "Satoshi's wisdom", rather it was found to be inapplicable. Full nodes are the "necessary evil" replacing Satoshi's SPVs, and yes, it is fundamental that those nodes are as sufficiently cheap that running one becomes an everyday thing.
Tell me something. Do you really think that a random amateur like yourself can come into a most technical field and start lecturing people? Do you really believe the coders working on this didn't think of ways to implement SPVs as Satoshi wanted, only for you to come up and enlighten everyone of what should be done? That nobody thought of it before you made your appearance? Where is this fucking arrogance coming from? I suspect that being treated as clients in colleges raises one's entitlement to farcical levels by slowly pushing one's head up one's ass. But I'm happy to stand corrected, if you'll be so kind to enlighten me.
Its your lack of details in the evaluation. You're only pushing the parts of the opinion that prop up the position your taking on this. Im not saying you dont have valid points and you probably didnt try to have an "agenda" but the way you presented your information just makes it seem so. Wasnt trying to make it sound I was discounting what you wrote. Again, I appreciate seeing that kinda commentary here. We need criticism.
As a note, I also think the guy replying to you might be a bit crass.