<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the<br>
> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the<br>
> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental<br>
> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe<br>
> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute<br>
> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite<br>
> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.<br>
<br>
</span>And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence.<br><br></div><div>Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way through which we do that.<br><br></div><div>If the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.<br></div><div><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br></div></div></div></div>