You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Litecoin & Bitcoin: What's the Difference?!
I'm not sure where Satoshi advocates full nodes running on a serve, if you you point me to that info, that would be much appreciated. When I say sustain, I mean Sustain the hash power hence the security of the network. RBF or fees in general to sustain the high has rate and security of the network.
A clogged chain with RBF will not sustain the hash rate better than the Bitcoin design itself, which instead relies on scaling and increased number of transactions. All it does is make the network malfunction in various ways.
The information on how Bitcoin is designed is, apart from the paper itself which is very clear from a technical point of view, spread out in the various Q&A comments Satoshi made previous to the initial chain launch and on the different forums after it.
Here is a collection of comments with sources. A few of these were made in direct response to early "full node" proponents that thought even ordinary users should run nodes to keep the network decentralized.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8n90qx/debunked_we_dont_know_what_satoshis_opinion_was
Thanks for the link, I will review it. However as I understand it, the inception of the bitcoin software which includes the full node wallet to help verify your mining process was a desktop application, everyone had a full node. Also to clarify my point, RBF as I see it in relation to off-chain scaling, incentivizes miners to continue providing the higher hash rates to secure the network as the reduced rewards and transactions ( due to off chain transaction batching). If the bitcoin network loses miners, the hash rate, and therefore the security of the network deminishes. Only valuable transactions will remain on-chain. It makes no real sense to have RBF with no implementation for off chain scaling. RBF does its best to get your transaction onto the next available block, if that's important to you. However the implementation of off chain scaling attempts to mitigate the requirement temporarily so real life transactions can occur while the transactions are batched.
You're welcome. The "full node centralization" has already been dealt with in the above link. Everyone was not meant to have a full node in the end. Just before he left, Satoshi was gearing up to implement "client only mode" as default, which would have used SPV and not stored the blockchain. Also already understood your point about RBF and answered it, even if my answer could seem a little convoluted or evasive at first glance.