Topic: Bitcoin network knowledge poll - page 2. (Read 1133 times)

I'd phrase that part differently.

With SPV, you're not using Bitcoin to its fullest potential, but you're still using it.  You're also not securing Bitcoin, but you are using it. 

If you can sign your own transactions with keys that you control, I think it's fair to say you meet the prerequisites to be classed as a user.

The node your SPV wallet is connecting to is the one actually part of the network, then technically no, you're not actually using Bitcoin. You're sending "your" Bitcoins through a third-party.


No, that would be elitist, not educational.

The question should be... If you don't run a full node and validate your own transactions... Can you consider yourself a proponent of bitcoin? Do you have a right to talk about its advantages in terms of providing of financial sovereignty and, more importantly, since we are talking about full nodes, advantages of decentralized monetary system without intermediaries involved when you do nothing yourself to contribute in the spreading of decentralization? The difference between ordinary users of the network and proponents of the bitcoin ideas should be clearly seen. If you're running a full node or at least want badly to start running it - you're a proponent, if you aren't - just a user. Being a user is not a bad thing, it still helps to spread information about the network thus making it stronger by attracting new participants.
 

I admit I am one of those who answered yes. I also admit I am under-educated about the technicalities behind Bitcoin.

A few questions for education and clarity's sake. By not validating my own Bitcoin transaction, does it automatically mean I am not using my Bitcoin when I spend it? What is it that I am particularly using then? When using an SPV wallet and therefore trusting a third-party's node, in what way am I not using my Bitcoin?

Based on the poll result, I believe maybe many uers in the forum are still under-educated about Bitcoin, including me. I would honestly vote "yes" without further research, which the poll was intended for.

You're not actually using Bitcoin, if not through a full node. When you use your Electrum wallet/SPV wallet, the third-party's node that it's connecting to is using Bitcoin, but not you.

That's OK. It's convenient, it's practical, BUT remember, less full nodes, less decentralization, less security.

It's a shame the poll doesn't allow changing the vote, 'cause I accidentally voted 'no' even though I meant 'yes'. In any case, the vast majority believed that there's no need in running a full node, and I agree. And from the educational perspective, I don't think there's a definite answer to this question, so while we can learn something new by reading the arguments, in the end one can make one's own mind about it. The reason  for that already sounded in the discussion: the phrase 'using Bitcoin' can mean different things. And running a full node is definitely not for everyone, it requires some background and time among other things. But perhaps I'll do it one day.

@Bttzed03: Welcome to the bandwagon, lots of space here I'm sure!


I don't know how anyone would have ever misinterpreted that. This is, after all, a poll and question in the Bitcointalk.org forum, in the Bitcoin discussion thread. I never saw LN anywhere until it was mentioned in that response!

Your insistence to discuss LN in topics that aren't even about LN make you the biggest fangirl on the planet.  Please stop derailing topics to fulfill your obvious need to emote your obsession and infatuation with Lightning.

No, there's nothing wrong with it, plus this is not a topic made to tell you to run a full node. It's simply for the purpose of learning more about the network. An educational topic, with some debates/discussion.




For specificity's sake, for you franky1. The Bitcoin on-chain full node. Not Lightning, not off-chain.

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

OK?

Probably because none of the "casual bitcoiners" joined the poll.

I also voted Yes. Call me a bandwagoner 
If I am sending btc through a wallet that connects to the Bitcoin network, I am using it.

by the way there is no such thing as a "mining node". there are only "miners" and "nodes". the node that a miner connects to can be referred to the "miner's node" but it is still the miner that mines bitcoin with their ASIC devices and the node that verifies the transactions.

that's true but not all. you aren't just securing bitcoin by running a full node, you would also be securing yourself by validating everything without relying on any third parties for validation.

The protocol doesn't know if a transaction originates from a full node or an SPV node. At this point the difference isn't that big for average users, because the network is decentralized, so attacks against SPV nodes are extremely unlikely to occur and succeed. So, yeah, you are still using Bitcoin, if we are talking about what we have now and not just pure theory.

oh look Mr LN fangirl with his poll of meaningless questions

the question says running a full node and validating own transactions.
but the stupidity of that chosen question leaves open the obvious mis-interpretetion of

'full node' of what chain.. people can run a full node of any chain and validate their transactions of that chain. but the question did not specify it being a full node of the btc chain.

'own transaction' leaving it open to mis-interpretation to not require needing to validate all transactions fully of a block
..
i know the LN fangirl is trying to ploy the subtly scheme of promoting LN by saying that LN nodes will validate all transactions involved in that persons channel.
i know the LN fan girl is also going to try to next re-define if btc is still btc if its not used on the network but playing around with partner verified bi-channel peers on a different network

..
but here would be a more appropriate answer combined with what should be the more appropriate questions that actually make sense.

if you can move btc on the bitcoin network. where it can be verified by the btc blockchain. you using bitcoin
if you can verify all transactions and archive them to support other random peers. you are securing bitcoin

you dont need to secure the blockchain to use it. but you do need to move funds on the blockchain to use bitcoin
anything else on any other network is not btc

No.
A transaction is validated once it is received (before adding it to the mempool).




There is no "the blockchain".
Every non-mining node adds blocks to his own local blockchain.
Upon receiving a new block from the network, it is being locally validated and afterwards added to the local blockchain.

There is no single blockchain instance. Each full node has a copy of "the blockchain" and adds blocks to it received from the network after validating it.



Your troll attempts are very weak. At least put a little bit of effort into it.
That's just sad. Your whole account is a trolling dumpster.

I'm done with replying to your troll posts.
It should be clear to everyone in this thread now that you are talking garbage. No reason for me to care about your shitty posts anymore.

I voted yes and am pleasantly surprised it's the overwhelming majority. I doubt it would have been 15 to 2 in 2016 when I first came.

I wonder now what definitions exist for Bitcoin user, but for me, if you interact with the network and blockchain in your use of Bitcoin or as a result of your activity -- you are one.

I mean, who's the "purer" user? All these activities give value to Bitcoin:

1. A guy who uses SPV clients to pay for stuff every now and then? He signs and broadcasts transactions.
2. A freelancer who earns directly into their exchange wallet and spends from there? He may never access with private keys, or sign transactions, but his interactions cause others to do these.
3. A miner might own a full node and literally validates and includes transactions, but he never once spends Bitcoin other than to liquidate at exchanges. So he's never done anything but trade, but he secures the network.

The ones I guess don't interact are those who "buy bitcoin" at an app and think they're holding. No bitcoin is ever sent, sold or bought. Just numbers in an account.


Hey Maus! Fancy seeing you here. Yeah, this is the explanation I remember but these days I myself am not serious on enforcing it even on my own. Now I even just say coin or coins and hardly ever use bitcoin as a unit.

No, you are still wrong.

Each full node validates a transaction before it is added to its mempool.
Later on, those transactions can be verified by full nodes (as well as SPV clients).

SPV users are still using Bitcoin.  The main difference is they're simply more reliant on trust than those validating transactions with a full node.

Webwallet and exchange users are effectively taking their chances as to whether or not they are still using Bitcoin.  They generally have no real way of knowing that their balance is real until they actually receive a withdrawal to a wallet they control.  The figures on their screen when using any third party service or website might represent a real bitcoin transaction, but it could equally be a scam.  Be cautious or be lucky, I guess.  

---

That's like saying your house doesn't consume electricity because no one would care if you switched off all your electrical devices.  It consumes electricity UNTIL you turn off all your power-using appliances.

Likewise, non-mining nodes fully validate transactions until you switch them off.

What debilitating mental condition did you say you suffer from again?



And if you could just show us in the code where it makes a distinction between "validate" and "verify"?


//EDIT:  From your reply, I'll assume you are unable to do that.  Mainly because you are attempting to create disparency where there is none.

No. Every full node does.
Check this users trust rating.




This does not prove anything.
Even if all non-mining full nodes are turned off, i can still run my own non-mining full node and still verify all transactions.

You seem to have a big misunderstanding regarding bitcoin.

Does it really need to be a mining node?
I think you are confusing validating a transaction that goes to the mempool and confirmation of the valid transactions.

You are wrong.
Every full node does validate all blocks and transactions.

If we apply your theory, a malicious miner could include a non-valid transaction into a block and every non-mining full node would accept it. This is simply wrong.
Each full node would decline that block which contains that non-valid transaction.