Author: Jared Lee Richardson 2017-03-30 17:16:41
Published on: 2017-03-30T17:16:41+00:00
The discussion revolves around the importance of nodes in relation to Bitcoin. The argument is made that node operation is only a small part of the bigger picture of Bitcoin's balance of power, as politics and people play a larger role. It is argued that the ability for users to run a node is what keeps miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any of Bitcoin's rules. However, it is noted that nodes disagreeing with miners is necessary but not sufficient to prevent rule changes, as nodes cannot utilize a nonfunctional chain or a coin with no exchanges. The importance of retaining power for users is discussed, as well as the ability for full nodes to protect users from changes to Bitcoin properties they do not agree with. Additionally, it is noted that the ability to run a node is what helps maintain monetary sovereignty. The debate around block size is seen as irrelevant in the larger picture of global transaction capacity. The market is storing billions of dollars in Bitcoin not because it is useful for everyday transactions, but rather as a risky, speculative investment into a promising future technology.While the increase in transaction fees may allow competitors to gain market share for low value use cases, all debates around block size are deemed a total waste of time. Lightning potentially offers a couple of orders of magnitude of scaling and will make block size a non-issue for years to come. However, even if it fails to live up to the hype, it is argued that the market will innovate solutions when there is money to be made.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T22:46:12.866548+00:00