3 ms·

That isn't even slightly true. This debate has been settled a long long time ago. Running a full node is the only way to assure the integrity of the currency.

That isn't even slightly true. This debate has been settled a long long time ago. Running a full node is the only way to assure the integrity of the currency. Increasing the block size decreases the number of people that run full nodes. It's obvious to anyone who works on Bitcoin that a linear increase to blocksize can never scale, while maintaining an open and decentralized environment.

dlubarov 6y ago
> Running a full node is the only way to assure the integrity of the currency. Another method is to use cryptographic proofs to demonstrate the validity of a blockchain state. A lot of newer projects are taking this approach, such as the project I work on, Mir Protocol. Granted, it doesn't seem like a realistic option for Bitcoin. The community doesn't seem very open to major protocol changes, and even if it were, cryptographic proofs for Bitcoin might be prohibitively expensive since the protocol wasn't designed with that in mind.
dylkil 6y ago
>Running a full node is the only way to assure the integrity of the currency. Increasing the block size decreases the number of people that run full nodes. where is the evidence for this? complete bullshit. How much fewer people would run a full node if the block size was increased from 1mb to 2mb?