I have an open mind and a willingness to change my point of view, provided you can give me a better argument. "Better" means really better, not just some half-baked idea you had whilst riding the bus to work.
So what? Everyone outside BSV doesn't think they're doing any work anyway. The reality is, now the community of leeches will have to do their own work.
I find it fascinating how the BTC crowd can eschew the very entities that build, invest in and secure their network. It's almost like they have no clue.
My honest suggestion to LightRider is to start paying attention to twatter users who actually understand what they are talking about. CryptoMedication is fairly and squarely *not* in that category.
And for the final fail of the day... Possibly the stupidest comment yet. This "CryptoMedication" is proving without a doubt that they couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. They've been talking about node peers, yet seem unable to contemplate how a node (e.g., Amy's node or Bob's node) might selectively propagate blocks. Hmmmm, let me think. How would that happen? Oh, perhaps by the outbound peers that they are connected to?? Amazing huh? Each miner can control which other miners they connect to, thus they can absolutely selectively propagate blocks. Those receiving miners then won't pass the block on until they have validated them, and only to miners that they have outbound connections with, which takes time. Fail #4.
You want to talk about embarrassing, huh, LightRider? :D
This one is hilarious. Miners validate blocks. What (non-mining) nodes do is irrelevant. A miner is *incentivized* to validate a block so it knows that it's building upon a valid block. This is actually how Nakamoto Consensus works. *Miners* (not non-mining nodes) indicate their acceptance of a block by building upon it. This CryptoMedication guy must have started reading about Bitcoin last week, since he/she clearly has no idea. Fail #3.
The "limit" is to connect to 8 *OUTBOUND* peers, not 8 nodes. Has nothing to do with the integrity of the network and everything to do with that fact that home up-links tend to be slower than down-links. Furthermore, how hard is it for a miner with fast up-link to change one variable in code and re-compile? Or even better make it a configurable option? Number of connected peers is nothing to do with protocol. Fail #2.
If miners didn't need to propagate blocks and they instantly appeared at all nodes simultaneously and they were verified instantly, this would be true, but it's not, thus it's NOT true. Fail #1.
LOL. checksum0 on the immutable ledger, demonstrating his ignorance. I guess this is the internet in a nutshell. People more willing to mouth off than read and validate assumptions.