Avoiding the costly to assay/validate flaw of monetary metals is why you want bitcoin nodes to be small and runnable by anyone. Bigger blocks increase the cost to validate and result in trusted 3rd parties.https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1144487521935429647 …
-
Please explain the drawbacks if I as a user can’t validate my transaction.
You could be cheated out of your money, and your delegation also makes the network in general less secure.
-
-
See also my thread Larry linked to for the historical importance of these capabilities (or lack thereof) for money in general, not just cryptocurrency.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Could never caught the rabbit whilst people were in fact cheated by replace-by-fee. More network nodes does not prevent network partitioning attack vector, more tightly connected nodes that generate blocks do. User can verify txes with service providers or with miners directly.
-
“With service providers or with miners directly” is trusting a third party. Read up on the risk sharing principle by
@evoskuil - you want as many people sharing risk as possible. Ideal state node for every person.https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Risk-Sharing-Principle … -
On the first ball, verification doesn’t mean trust. It’s a simple operation to see if the network accepted txn/if it’s valid. Can’t cheat the network that generates blocks. I’ll check up on the ideal state node principle. Looks interesting.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.