RE: Litecoin & Bitcoin: What's the Difference?!
I side with Satoshi on full nodes; They should only have to be run as server farms and operated by professionals. Even 3-4 nodes would indeed be enough and the system is decentralized and properly incentivized even with fewer nodes than that, he was right about that too.
Because of there not being any arbitrary limits on these numbers, there need not be any arbitrary limits on blocksize either and it can grow to huge size.
A fee market is not bad in of itself, but the "fee market" that Greg Maxwell and company had in mind was one where the fee trended upwards instead of as per the Bitcoin design where it's supposed to go downwards towards a small minimum.
I'm not sure what you mean in this context by "sustain", because security is not increased but lessened by making confirmations unreliable.
This manipulated market in fees occasionally crowds out small transactions first and larger transactions would remain longer, that's correct. Of course personally that offends me since the security of Lightning Network transactions is both different by default and also then dependent on settlement on the main chain. (Potentially even worse imo is when some say that you should never settle on the main chain, as this is rather analogous to how gold coins were initially replaced by secure notes)
The manipulation in regards to pricing mechanisms is the introduction of higher fees by encouraging long queues, bidding and rebidding (actively raising) of ones fee. This drives fee prices up, which creates a lock in effect on the smaller accounts. In turn this creates a form of hyperdeflation, which can even drive up price per Bitcoin in the external market places. The deflation comes from lower liquidity and increased demand for replacing the Bitcoins already lost in fees or temporarily locked out of transacting with.
I cannot see any discussion about avoiding routing in the design
I'm not sure at the top of my head if there is any email correspondence mentioning the concept as "routing" in particular, but there should be a few mentions of how the nodes not needing to be identified and broadcasting on best effort basis eliminates dependency issues. If you're interested in that in particular, I'd try using that terminology in searches instead.
I'd also like to note that more or less only Satoshi and Gavin put as great emphasis on having transactions be on the main chain. Others, Hal especially, thought side chains should have a much more prominent role than had been preferred by the former two.
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.