Lite coin cash, page-34

"(EVERYONE SHOULD RUN A FULL NODE CRAP.)"

Thanks for the strawman. Nowhere in my post did I say this.

"Waist of time my friend."

Please see my earlier post. Particularly the following paragraphs:

"While this is somewhat bad, the implications are often exaggerated by people who understand the power that a single miner has to change the rules, but misunderstand that that miner has next to nil power to enforce the economic majority to follow. Nipping at that miner's heels is the 'long tail' of many, many smaller miners jumping at the chance for the big miner to go off and do something stupid like this, so that they can collect the reward instead.

Centralisation leads to less people either mining or watching the blockchain. Bitcoin itself provides no guarantee that it may not be corrupted by central authority if it became highly centralised. It merely provides a openly visible mathematical security platform in the hope that it doesn't.

But how much centralisation can be tolerated? Roger Ver believes that a dozen nodes worldwide is enough decentralisation. This is quite bizarre from somebody with his history and claimed political leanings. The current establishment systems in western countries already work with this level of decentralisation. The RBA, the US Federal Reserve, fiscal review boards, and many other decision making authorities usually consist of a number roughly of which Roger describes as being 'enough decentralisation'. He himself would have been reviewed by decision making boards regarding his imprisonment for sending explosives by post (Not to draw into a debate of whether this was or wasn't just).

Decisions regarding many critical functions in western governments are made through boards to distribute power (Because power corrupts). Arbitrary decisions made through an individual become too entrenched in bias that their infamy is well earned and their collapse is too likely. Boards of a dozen or so, also suffer from corruption, but to a lesser extent and more of a systemic nature.

When you compare these 2 systems, it becomes obvious that centralisation / decentralisation is a scale. An individual could make extremely corrupt decisions quickly, while a board of a dozen would suffer less from obvious signs of corruption, but still be susceptible. A board of 50 would operate slowly, but would contain greater demographics and perspectives to further remove the corruption. We can therefore conclude the following: the greater the number of board members (On the assumption that these are random candidates as board members), the less the system is susceptible to corruption. Bitcoin creates a system which allows potentially endless numbers of 'board members' (Listening nodes currently number over 10,000) to review the blockchain to ensure that actions being taken are in line with your views as a member of the economic majority.

To anyone who questions whether changes to the blockchain history would be made if only a small number of nodes were watching, this has already happened with XRP (Ripple token), because of its centralisation."