[npoc]

Yes full non-mining nodes. I understand about pruned nodes, but that is a bonus for both networks - it means people can run a node on their mobile phone for example. The nodes have the real power in the network - they're are the people’s vote on what bitcoin really is. You can mine what you like but if my node says it's not bitcoin, it's not bitcoin. And there's many more who think like me. This has already been proven in the block-size wars - both the consensus on block-size and proof of the power of nodes vs miners.

The HW to run bitcoin is extremely cheap - less than $100. All you need is an old laptop or Raspberry Pi with a 700GB of storage, and a ham radio/dial-up internet connection to another node.

[hggh]

So you're telling me that you can have a say in the blockchain with no proof-of-work whatsoever on your part

[npoc]

Yes. It's network effect. Even if all of the miners simultaneously decided to go big block or some other controversial change that most people don't want, the majority of the population's nodes would then not accept the mined blocks. They'd see the rate of new blocks drop to 0, and people would instantly start mining on their PCs to get the block reward. Some of the miners would start to change their mind and start mining with ASICs for the easy block-reward and eventually the hash-rate would build back up again, with the previous miners or without them.

The non-mining nodes in fact can completely destroy the ASIC miners by upgrading to a new POW algorithm. Hopefully it will never come to that, but ultimately the people, with their non-mining nodes have the power, not the miners. The only way miners can successfully change bitcoin is if the vast majority of people agree with the change.

[hggh]

Why “non-mining full nodes” are a terrible idea:

https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-a...

[npoc]

The comments to that article (especially the one from dooglus) make a decent rebuttal to the idea that full nodes are a "terrible idea".

If you're convinced a block chain can scale to 50k transactions / sec and also remain decentralised and offer enough privacy, then keep at it, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.

Even if it were theoretically possible, the solution would likely be so complex, or based on a long chain of "hopefully unlikely" events that I wouldn't have enough confidence in it to store large amounts of value.

The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.

[hggh]

There's also a rebuttal to that comment: https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/first-of-all-i-want-to-appl...

> The slowness and simplicity of the Bitcoin network is what gives it robustness, and if I'm storing large amounts of money, that's what I want even if it means I can't buy a cup of coffee on the same network.

Then why not just use gold? It is slow, simple, and you can't use it to buy coffee.

[npoc]

Because it's not as liquid, it's not as easily verified, the supply doubles every 40 years, it's not as easily protected (compared to multi-sig bitcoin), I can't send it around the world in 10 minutes, and I can't take it across borders in my head. It doesn't form the basis for the entire world's future reserve asset and monetary unit, and the market is mature/saturated whereas bitcoin is completely misunderstood by almost everyone and so is wildly undervalued.

Bitcoin is demonetising gold.