Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Cryptocurrency Ecosystem => Bitcoin Forum => Topic started by: bosshyip on August 10, 2018, 07:07:18 PM
-
The innovation in Bitcoin is decentralized consensus. Because of this, we are able to have a decentralized network that transfers value. I believe we all agree that a good number of full nodes (whether that be owned by miners or by users) are needed to keep the decentralized nature of this network.
However, there are plethora of disagreements on how much is needed to keep this network decentralized. In my opinion, we should aim high in order to keep the network decentralized and thus should do all we can to make it easier for anyone to have full nodes. If the cost of running a full node is so cheap and so fast, SPVs wouldn't even be needed; this removes the need for many things such as the inefficient (and not working) Bloom filters. The thing that stops individuals from running full nodes is how long it takes for the initial synchronization process. To conclude, imo, cost of full nodes should be so cheap that every wallet would be a full node that has its own full copy of the blockchain (you could prune if storage is the problem).
If we don't aim to have as much full nodes as possible, that means that there is a "good enough". Where would this "good enough" be and what are the reasons you came to this conclusion?
Any thoughts are very welcome and appreciated.
@bosshyip