I wish I was one of the few who answered first. I usually read other comments before I post but I'm not going to do it this time to test my little knowledge.
The way I understand the question, it is asking if I use the Bitcoin network even if I don't run a full node and not validating my own transactions. I think Yes. The wallet that I am using, even if it's SPV client, is still connected to a full node and everytime I send, I am also using the Bitcoin network. Needless to say, I am not so sure about my answer but I'm open for correction/s.
Topic: Bitcoin network knowledge poll - page 3. (Read 1133 times)
[...] but if they were running a full node and were not in full control of their keys (eg. having a 2of3 multi sig where 2 keys are controlled by a third party such as a bank or the government and they only have 1 key) you can't say they are using bitcoin just because of running a full node.
This truly depends on the definition of using bitcoin.
IMO using bitcoin is defined as participating in the bitcoin network by using the bitcoin protocol.
then we are back at my initial statement about the flaw in this question. we should first define what we mean by "using bitcoin".
in any case when i want to define full nodes i like to use democracy and voting as comparison.
you can be a citizen, walk the streets, benefit from what the government offers,... and not vote. in other words have no say in who the government is and some day someone might take the "seat of power" that you don't want. that is equal to using bitcoin but not running a node.
or you could do all that and vote so you have a say in who the government is. in bitcoin that vote takes place every second with every transaction that a node verifies and nearly every 10 minutes with every block they verify.
[...] but if they were running a full node and were not in full control of their keys (eg. having a 2of3 multi sig where 2 keys are controlled by a third party such as a bank or the government and they only have 1 key) you can't say they are using bitcoin just because of running a full node.
This truly depends on the definition of using bitcoin.
IMO using bitcoin is defined as participating in the bitcoin network by using the bitcoin protocol.
And in this case - even with only 1 out of 3 keys - this would fall under the category of using bitcoin.
With 2 out of 3 keys hold by a 3rd party, this might not be the way it is intended to be used as decentralized peer-2-peer money, but it still is used in a proper way.
But running a full node doesn't have anything to do with using bitcoin, IMO.
i tried answering this question but no matter how much i try i can not come up with a good answer. the problem is that the question is flawed! one does not have to run a full node to "use bitcoin" and if they ran a full node they may not still be using bitcoin.
for example if they were using an SPV client and were in full control of their keys they are still benefiting fully from what bitcoin offers.
but if they were running a full node and were not in full control of their keys (eg. having a 2of3 multi sig where 2 keys are controlled by a third party such as a bank or the government and they only have 1 key) you can't say they are using bitcoin just because of running a full node.
for example if they were using an SPV client and were in full control of their keys they are still benefiting fully from what bitcoin offers.
but if they were running a full node and were not in full control of their keys (eg. having a 2of3 multi sig where 2 keys are controlled by a third party such as a bank or the government and they only have 1 key) you can't say they are using bitcoin just because of running a full node.
Transaction validation doesn't mean it's confirmation. As long as there's no confirmation of that transaction no one can say he used his Bitcoin. Therefore, in answering this question (assuming I am reading it correctly) I have submitting NO.
But he can still use the bitcoin though there is partial confirmation of the transaction. This can go on with the next node as well. I believe as soon as the transaction is in broadcasting and stage and once your receive the BTC in your wallet, then they are ready to use for further transaction if any despite of partial confirmation.
Of course correct me I am wrong and add more to this please!
You don't necessarily need to run a full node to be using bitcoin.
This one does support above assumptions.
You don't necessarily need to run a full node to be using bitcoin.
The SPV mechanism has been mentioned by satoshi in the bitcoin whitepaper. There is nothing wrong with using SPV wallets.
In the end, you are still verifying whether a transaction has been confirmed yourself. You just don't store all blocks.
Getting (and storing) the blockheader, together with requesting additional information to validate whether a transaction is included using the merkle tree, is still verifying by yourself. Therefore you are still using bitcoin 'the correct way'.
If you want to to help the network or want more privacy, then a full node obviously is better. But it isn't required to actually use bitcoin.
The SPV mechanism has been mentioned by satoshi in the bitcoin whitepaper. There is nothing wrong with using SPV wallets.
In the end, you are still verifying whether a transaction has been confirmed yourself. You just don't store all blocks.
Getting (and storing) the blockheader, together with requesting additional information to validate whether a transaction is included using the merkle tree, is still verifying by yourself. Therefore you are still using bitcoin 'the correct way'.
If you want to to help the network or want more privacy, then a full node obviously is better. But it isn't required to actually use bitcoin.
I have voted for YES, because I believe who have control of your funds, I mean if you have control over your private keys then you are the owner of this bitcoin and you are using bitcoin by yourself. All the bitcoins stored into blockchain always, only who have access private keys they could spend only. Who have private keys they could validate transaction via SPV wallet like Electrum even you aren't using full node. Here you would read how SPV ( Simple Payment Verification) validate a transaction. So I can say we are using bitcoin even we aren't running full node (Bitcoin core).
I believe you can still 'use' bitcoin even if not running a node.
It is the users that create the network effect.
It is the users that create the network effect.
We have only eight replies. That's disappointing, but it has just been 24 hours. I'm waiting for DooMAD, d5000, and from the other side, franky1, aliasharif, and of course gmaxwell's opinion would make the topic more educational.
Plus, I don't care if you run a node or don't run a node, but all of your opinions towards educating ourselves in this topic will be indispensible.
Plus, I don't care if you run a node or don't run a node, but all of your opinions towards educating ourselves in this topic will be indispensible.
Installing our own node means use 'Bitcoin Core', if you have an online wallet and make transactions from there you are using a 3rd party service to move your Bitcoins, so, in theory you are using Bitcoin but not Bitcoin Core.
Nice poll OP, let's see what do others think.
Nice poll OP, let's see what do others think.
I'm very curious what answers the people in the forum have. Please let the topic be full of debates, but with knowledge, learning, and fun.
The poll can change monthly, or quarterly, or bi-annually.
The poll can change monthly, or quarterly, or bi-annually.
My answer is Yes!
The miners are the backbone of the netwrok while node operators form the skeleton of the network. However, the general bitcoin users are the muscles of the network because without users, a network makes no sense! But we can't really expect everyone to run a full bitcoin node.
If running a full bitcoin node becomes a mandate, it won't be long before its value comes to zero. We can't really expected every single users to run a node. It will just hinder its growth!
It's a little like asking about GNU/Linux usages to say:
"You can clean your system with a Terminal and commands but if you use a UI like Bleachbit, are you using Linux?"
I answered yes to your poll because even if you're not a "hardcore" user and do not use it to its full potential you're still using it. We don't have the same knowledge or resource; what can be easy to understand and practice for you may not be for someone else. If you expect to see the mass having their own node it's not something that will happen, nowadays or in 10 years. There are those who seek to learn to evolve and those who don't want to because of the way they use it suffices them enough.
It's also like saying people aren't using the internet because they don't have their own router/box
"You can clean your system with a Terminal and commands but if you use a UI like Bleachbit, are you using Linux?"
I answered yes to your poll because even if you're not a "hardcore" user and do not use it to its full potential you're still using it. We don't have the same knowledge or resource; what can be easy to understand and practice for you may not be for someone else. If you expect to see the mass having their own node it's not something that will happen, nowadays or in 10 years. There are those who seek to learn to evolve and those who don't want to because of the way they use it suffices them enough.
It's also like saying people aren't using the internet because they don't have their own router/box
Honestly you should be separating a Bitcoin user using it as a payment as well as a Bitcoin user using it as a payment at the same time contributing to BTC's network. In the first place Satoshi created Bitcoin as a P2P solution and I don't think he said anything about Bitcoin users in order to be a true user he/she needs to run their own full node. For one not all Bitcoin users have the capacity both financiall and intellectually to run a full node by themselves, yeah sure it would be easy if we read some guides to remove the "intellectual" part but that will only solve the problem for people who have the financial capacity to run a full node. IMHO using Bitcoin as a consumer and accepting Bitcoin as a producer is enough to show that you fully support Bitcoin as a currency.
Hey! To be honest, I am not running full node but I am planning to have one in the near future because at this point, I feel this is just the start of my journey in bitcoin space. And yet, I am still at the learning phase of bitcoins' basic concept. So, building a full node or a pruned node is not my priority.
bitcoin = unit of account. The coins we are transferring in the Bitcoin network.
These two terms actually confuses people because it has the same pronunciation and spelling thus, they commonly interchange it by mistake
[Ref] https://bitcoin.org/en/vocabulary#address
Or is there a necessary difference between Bitcoin and bitcoin?
Bitcoin = is used to describe the whole concept of bitcoin or the protocol itselfbitcoin = unit of account. The coins we are transferring in the Bitcoin network.
These two terms actually confuses people because it has the same pronunciation and spelling thus, they commonly interchange it by mistake
[Ref] https://bitcoin.org/en/vocabulary#address
Interesting poll.
I would say "I use bitcoin" (the coin) without running the node, but that certainly is not the right/secure way to use Bitcoin. I think full/reasonble participation in the network consensus with full node should be the right way to use it.
Well, running a full node is abit difficult, and I can't be the only one using bitcoin the right way while lots of other people can't.
I would say "I use bitcoin" (the coin) without running the node, but that certainly is not the right/secure way to use Bitcoin. I think full/reasonble participation in the network consensus with full node should be the right way to use it.
Well, running a full node is abit difficult, and I can't be the only one using bitcoin the right way while lots of other people can't.
I answered yes. Or is there a necessary difference between Bitcoin and bitcoin?
Well, for sure, not everybody can run a full node. But everybody can definitely use the Bitcoin (or is it bitcoin?) as a currency.
It would be nice to be able to run a full node, validate transactions, and help the network, but if somebody cannot do that, it would be enough to spend and receive Bitcoin for anybody to be considered using Bitcoin.
Well, for sure, not everybody can run a full node. But everybody can definitely use the Bitcoin (or is it bitcoin?) as a currency.
It would be nice to be able to run a full node, validate transactions, and help the network, but if somebody cannot do that, it would be enough to spend and receive Bitcoin for anybody to be considered using Bitcoin.
I'm very curious what answers the people in the forum have. Please let the topic be full of debates, but with knowledge, learning, and fun.
The poll can change monthly, or quarterly, or bi-annually.
Poll for May, 2020 was,
If you don't run a full node and validate your own transactions, are you actually using Bitcoin?
Yes, 24 votes
No, 6 votes
The poll can change monthly, or quarterly, or bi-annually.
Poll for May, 2020 was,
Quote
If you don't run a full node and validate your own transactions, are you actually using Bitcoin?
Yes, 24 votes
No, 6 votes
Jump to: