Okay thx for ref. articles, but I meant if miners for what ever reason would do on purpose....

Sure retailers was wrong, I hope to hear you sell some at European conferences ;) Every beer u drink also from Belgium, I prefer czech

I meant simpler, if ppl would just use SPV, and only miners, merchants, exchanges etc would run FVN. Example: if someone hides invalid transaction in a valid block. It can’t be the main chain and would not be accepted by FVN. I wanted you to describe why SPV are not sufficient for majority and what the impacts would be

Bandwidth and CPU time has historically improved on average approx. 17% per year. Since block size wasn't reduced, and in fact was increased, we have a LOT of catch-up to do if we ever want Bitcoin to be safely decentralised again. Do u think we need to reduce block size to keep bitcoin safe ? I mean at least 80% of economic activity should be verified (users verify own incoming tx), anything less means there is a real risk an invalid chain will prevail over a valid one. Any block size larger than 300k increases the cost FASTER than technology becomes cheaper. Do you agree?

‪We all need to run full validating nodes, no working implementation of spv, not able to prove a block is invalid and even if, not sufficient bc of valid-but-unknown blocks. Could you go into detail why blowback would be huge and it’s likely the community would just decide to tolerate a invalid block and try to ‘patch up’ the ill effects reactively ? Thank you.