Topic: Bitcoin network knowledge poll (Read 1133 times)

I said "no" but it's also not clear to me what the question means.

Last time I used USD to buy coffee instead of a card was probably over twenty years ago-- okay maybe I used some pocket change a couple times in between--  is USD a failure because of that?

USD is a worse money than Bitcoin from several different perspectives, so in general I try to get rid of it ASAP-- and that means spending it preferentially and preferring to be net short it (e.g. by having a zero interest rate credit card balance for a month). By comparison, Bitcoin is better so I prefer to spend it last unless its uniquely good properties are called on.

These days Bitcoin isn't a great match for spending a couple bucks on coffee-- and no I don't mean transaction fees (since obviously lightning is a good fit for that usage)-- but because it has disadvantageous tax treatment: spending time to account for and report cap gains for a $1 cup of coffee would be absurd.  But so what?


I think it's even simpler than DooMAD's answer:  For the most part they don't run nodes themselves (otherwise ... they probably wouldn't be big blockers!) and admitting that the absurd resource costs even at current load levels is a factor would crush their arguments, yet they're already suicide-pact committed to blocksize-go-up and so to resolve the dissonance they take the position that it doesn't matter how resource intensive it is because people shouldn't be running them.

Ah, must have missed that post.  I think I can answer that one.

Despite the fact they often try to shift the blame onto developers (because it helps them play the victim and make the issue appear more divisive than it really is), they probably know that non-mining full nodes are the real opposition they face in achieving their goal of an increase in the size of blocks.  It's the people running full nodes who would bear the brunt of the cost for that, so it stands to reason they would oppose it.  While SPV users are Bitcoin users, they aren't involved in matters of network governance, because they aren't helping to secure the network.  SPV users effectively follow unquestioningly.
 
Running a full node gives users the power to resist changes to the protocol rules if enough of them disagree, but bigblockers can't reconcile this with their (seemingly genuine, but ultimately wrong) belief that most users want larger blocks.  Although, in fairness, I suppose it is possible a larger percentage of SPV users would like to see larger blocks.  But that's only because there's no perceivable cost to them and they maybe don't appreciate what full nodes are actually doing for them.  Ultimately, though, they don't have a say in the matter.  It's up to those securing the network to decide.  If a majority of the users running full nodes really did want larger blocks, they would run software that allowed that.  Obviously they aren't doing that. 

As such, it's a fairly conclusive outcome.  Larger blocks aren't happening yet.  So, the bigblockers, likely in desperation, start to hint that it would be "better" (read: worse) if fewer users run full nodes because big data centres running nodes probably wouldn't resist the change as strongly. 

In short, bigblockers want to weaken network governance to get what they want.  And clearly that's not happening either.  They're fighting a lost cause.

I believe "we" didn't fail to make Bitcoin for microtransactions. It was simply discovered that the Bitcoin blockchain/infrastructure, as designed and built, and to the direction which censorship-resistance/decentralization/security has to be maintained, simply cannot handle millions of coffee transactions per transaction. There are externalities.

I appreciated with you bitcoin is not a failure.
Bitcoin make stronger needed for some of technical knowledge (Ex: trade, HODL, analysis knowledge etc.) so think bitcoin born with profitable but losses for missing decisions or wrong analysis to go that then result losses or failure the dream.



The good point here when we think in general terms we make many small things very complicated or difficult which is why many times we think even simple things are very difficult. As far as i can see those who work with Bitcoin are very intelligent and have benefited over time.

(for reference)

The new question: Is Bitcoin truly "a failure", if it was used more as a Store of Value than for "Coffee Transactions"?

My answer: No

While I consider the "store of value" narrative to be a bit of a lame copout ("we failed to make bitcoin feasible for microtransactions so let's invent this other quality for it to have as a replacement"), so long as anybody at all is still using it to conduct "online payments sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution", then its not a failure. If every last bitcoiner became a HODLer, at that point I would consider it to be a failure.

As long as some people continue to use bitcoin for that which it was designed and built, it cannot be a failure.

The question in my last post in the topic was NEVER answered. Hahaha.

I have a new poll for the topic. Let's make it educational, with more debates/arguments, but friendly as usual.

I am seriously asking for my Bitcoin learning process. A person cannot learn by keeping himself in an "echo-chamber". The other side's perspective is also important in my opinion.

franky1 said that you're not using Bitcoin without using a full node to interface with Bitcoin/trustlessly verifying everything, I agree! But my question is, big blockers tell everyone that we don't need to run full nodes. Why?

Wind_FURY knows that.  Pretty sure they're just playing along and letting fiction1 dig a nice big hole for himself before opening a can of whoop-ass on him.

Don't listen to him.
He is a known troll on this forum claiming that SPV wallets are not bitcoin and the LN is not related to bitcoin at all and centralized. He is either full of hate or delusional. Or maybe both.



Definitely.
Whether one needs to run a full node depends on their goal with BTC.

If you want to have a good privacy while contributing to the network, you should definitely run a full node.
If you just want to hold and spend some BTC, you definitely don't need to run one.

Thank you for the reply, franky1.

My next question. There are people like Roger Ver, and other people in the community that spread the narrative, "ordinary people don't need to run full nodes". Are they wrong? Should we encourage people to try running a node, than discouraging them?


Sorry if it reads snobby, but it's a technical question.

For reference to future readers (I'm not sure how often you update the poll), the question is:

"If you don't run a full node and validate your own transactions, are you actually using Bitcoin?"

The whole premise is a bit snobby. Not everybody has the capacity, bandwidth or time to run their own node, nor should they have to in order to "use Bitcoin."

If you use a private key to sign a transaction that gets sent to the network because you initiated the transaction, you are using Bitcoin. Arguably people who use services like Coinbase or other custodial wallets to send bitcoin are "not as" using it, but they are still using it.

The people who voted "No" are like the DJs who think you aren't a real DJ if you don't spin vinyl. If you use any sort of sound system to mix one song into another in front of a crowd, you can get paid as a DJ, or people can refer to you as a DJ without controversy. To complete the analogy, people who use custodial wallets are like DJs who use completely automated mixing systems and don't even bother to wear headphones.

if you only have one 'peer' that the software is hardcoded to(middleman). and that middleman can just ignore your transaction for reasons outside of the bitcoin rules.. then your not part of bitcoin (network/infrastructure)
EG lite wallets such as a proposed starbucks app
EG and exchange app

if your not able to store/examine the blockchain to ensure that funds received are actually confirmed. and all you get is a server(middleman) saying yes or no. again your not using the bitcoin network

..
i could go on about
if you are on a network where the blockdata is not the same as the bitcoin network. your not using bitcoin
if your using a network without a blockchain. your not using bitcoin

if your on another network playing with parent/child transactions. where parents locked for a month and the child daily transactions are measured in different units of measure. then your not using bitcoin
EG LN
(eg if a banknote says 1 pound(silver) sterling.. its not silver because its paper and doesnt actually weigh 1lb) the real silver wont move out of the vault until it gets cleared authorisation

just writing transactions offchain. where it looks like they 'might' get paid favourably. does not make it a valid/confirmed payment
(eg writing dodgy cheques.. cheques are only valid when they have been cleared by the bank.)

cheques are not real fiat. they only facilitate the movement of fiat once they have cleared/confirmed

Yes, but technically, that doesn't answer the question on what to call those people who hold, and spend Bitcoin without using Bitcoin through full nodes.

I don't use a full node most of the time. Does that make me a "sometimes user"?

From the discussion it's clear an individual can not hold the full node and neither requires one to just hold the bitcoins. It's all about public ledger, may be our coins are stored locally if the wallet is on a local machine and if it's over exchanger then it has to be on the server. Don't know, but this is the basic idea, whole node is made up of various machines connected together over internet. So it's pretty simple we still won't be needing full node to hold the coins.

Maybe I was nitpicky.

I showed this topic to my friend, and he asked, "But what would you call those people who hold, and spend Bitcoin"?

#Confused. Haha.

But that's the debate, "If you don't run a full node, are you actually using Bitcoin?", because it might be like a leech. Without full nodes that it must connect to, where/how can SPV wallets get the data?

i think you might be confusing custodial wallets with SPV clients. the SPV clients are actually capable of performing a lot of verifications. after all "V" stands for "verification".
for example an SPV client could connect to multiple different bitcoin nodes and fetch bitcoin block headers and figure out the longest chain. it can also verify all block headers (version, work, previous block header hash, time so it can even verify their work to be valid, merkle root hash if it gets the list of transactions too). it can also verify any transaction that it wants. using bloom filters it can receive the transaction and all its inputs and any block that includes those inputs and perform the verifications.
and many more...
so it is not "only connecting to a full node" like a leach.

Technically, it's debatable. Your SPV wallet, it's only connecting to a full node, and has to trust the full node.

I also noticed the smarter, "you don't have to run a full node" big blockers, are not in here because it would contradict with their own debate.


I asked some of the smarter people to weigh in, but maybe they're busy.

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
SPV has been proposed in the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is simply a mechanism to verify payments without requiring all blocks to be saved.
Thanks to concept of the blocks (especially merkle trees), the header (and missing hashes) are enough to verify that payments (transactions) are included in a block.

I could also claim:
The computer you are using is connecting to the network, so no.. you (as a person) are not actually using bitcoin. You are sending "your" bitcoin through an electronic device.

Obviously this statement would be completely retarded. But there is a small analogy to your statement.