Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 137.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 12:09:20 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 12:06:20 PM

If we can't move forward because of fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.

It seems like the "large blockians" are afraid of starting their own coin from scratch (or even just forking today) and letting it compete with the current state of Bitcoin.

they did

look at thread title, it got #REKT

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 12:06:20 PM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 12:01:06 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?

Yes.

In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization.

This is overly paranoid. This would be a good thing if we ever get there but it is not a reason to not move forward. If we can't move forward because the fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.

The unknown?

ISPs every where all over the world are currently censoring internet access to their customers in some shape or form.

The internet grid is owned by major fiat corporations who can easily be pressed into "interfering" with a growing government threat.

While it may not happen in your country, it will in several others. We need to make Bitcoin resilient to these attacks.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

A bit of a side note.

Been running a full listening node for about a month without a restart. Used 200+GB of traffic with my unlimited 40Mbit/s connection.

I've been running it with default settings, and about yesterday it's been so horrible that my PC (i5-2320, 12GB) had frozen at times. That's probably due to the recent flood of transactions.

Not quite as bad an experience, but not as good one either.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 12:06:20 PM

If we can't move forward because of fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.

It seems like the "large blockians" are afraid of starting their own coin from scratch (or even just forking today) and letting it compete with the current state of Bitcoin.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 12:06:20 PM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 12:01:06 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?

Yes.

In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization.

This is overly paranoid. This would be a good thing if we ever get there but it is not a reason to not move forward. If we can't move forward because of fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.

Even if it is overly paranoid, let's not move in the opposite direction. Thanks.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 12:01:06 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?

Yes.

In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization.

This is overly paranoid. This would be a good thing if we ever get there but it is not a reason to not move forward. If we can't move forward because the fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 12:02:54 PM

It's already not the case. Now what? Is bitcoin broken?

We should be working on improving that before having year long arguments about taking the training wheels off.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:50:01 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

If this is the only thing you care about bitcoin why don't you go use an altcoin that offers the EXACT same things and let bitcoin SCALES as it supposed to be?

Raising the blocksize is not scaling, for the 1,000,000th fucking time you troll

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 12:00:30 PM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:59:14 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

You might have your reasons to do so, yes you may choose not to do so. Indeed you don't "need" to run one...unless you care about monetary sovereignty which is where Bitcoin's true value resides.

But by all means go ahead use spv wallets, web "portals" (as in: and...it's gone), and other various Hearnias just make sure it don't come at no cost to me.

I don't need to pay from my own freedom to be free from trusted authority for these "users" inability to stuck sucking from the tit and always ask for a "supporting" hand to move forward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. Let me try to explain.

Every user does not need to run a full node, yet every user who wants to run a full node should be capable of doing so.

Kind of like... every driver does not need to wear a seat belt, but every driver should be capable of wearing one if they want.

This

It's already not the case. Now what? Is bitcoin broken?

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on October 09, 2015, 11:50:33 AM

Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?

It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?

Yes.

In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:59:14 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

You might have your reasons to do so, yes you may choose not to do so. Indeed you don't "need" to run one...unless you care about monetary sovereignty which is where Bitcoin's true value resides.

But by all means go ahead use spv wallets, web "portals" (as in: and...it's gone), and other various Hearnias just make sure it don't come at no cost to me.

I don't need to pay from my own freedom to be free from trusted authority for these "users" inability to stuck sucking from the tit and always ask for a "supporting" hand to move forward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. Let me try to explain.

Every user does not need to run a full node, yet every user who wants to run a full node should be capable of doing so.

Kind of like... every driver does not need to wear a seat belt, but every driver should be capable of wearing one if they want.

This

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

You might have your reasons to do so, yes you may choose not to do so. Indeed you don't "need" to run one...unless you care about monetary sovereignty which is where Bitcoin's true value resides.

But by all means go ahead use spv wallets, web "portals" (as in: and...it's gone), and other various Hearnias just make sure it don't come at no cost to me.

I don't need to pay from my own freedom to be free from trusted authority for these "users" inability to stuck sucking from the tit and always ask for a "supporting" hand to move forward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. Let me try to explain.

Every user does not need to run a full node, yet every user who wants to run a full node should be capable of doing so.

Kind of like... every driver does not need to wear a seat belt, but every driver should be capable of wearing one if they want.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:37:21 AM

Having fewer peers =! being centralized.

What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoins for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy.

We should be careful with that one.
You need to ask yourself then "Who is going to dominate Bitcoin?"

Would that be a "big block institution" or a simple and robust framework of transparent monetary rules enforced by the majority of Bitcoin users?
The latter seems more in line with Bitcoin's true purpose.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:41:13 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:37:21 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:13:08 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:51:34 AM

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization.

...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level).

So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut?

Having fewer peers =! being centralized.

What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoin for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy.

I didn't say having fewer peers equals centralized. I said that reducing the number of peers is moving away from decentralization.

How far can we move before it becomes easier to harm the network?

Shouldn't we be looking for ways to move towards greater decentralization instead of less decentralization?

What you call crippled, I call nimble.

Everyone agrees that having the most node as possible is good for decentralization but at some point it might also be unnecessary.

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP? I don't and I won't consider bitcoin to be centralized because nodes will have to be run on business grade hardware. I'm not sure why it would be easier to arm the network because of this.

Tell that to the chinese you entitled little whiner.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:37:21 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:13:08 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:51:34 AM

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization.

...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level).

So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut?

Having fewer peers =! being centralized.

What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoins for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy.

You just don't get it... Peter Todd, I believe, is used to say "the only node that matters is the one you run" and this is suitably demonstrative of the importance of validating your own transactions.

Your childish niche market comment shows you have a terrible conception of what makes the economy and how it is actually distributed.

Bitcoin could grow to a trillion market cap tomorrow and it wouldn't break. You have no idea the amount of money that is sleeping everywhere in the world afraid to get noticed by the same authorities you like to suck up to. These numbers looking for a safe haven of value to store their worth at would put to shame any of your consumer braindead ideas of "mass adoption" and "merchant acceptance".

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

If this is the only thing you care about bitcoin why don't you go use an altcoin that offers the EXACT same things and let bitcoin SCALES as it supposed to be?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:41:13 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 11:37:21 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:13:08 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:51:34 AM

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization.

...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level).

So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut?

Having fewer peers =! being centralized.

What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoin for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy.

I didn't say having fewer peers equals centralized. I said that reducing the number of peers is moving away from decentralization.

How far can we move before it becomes easier to harm the network?

Shouldn't we be looking for ways to move towards greater decentralization instead of less decentralization?

What you call crippled, I call nimble.

Everyone agrees that having the most node as possible is good for decentralization but at some point it might also be unnecessary.

Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP? I don't and I won't consider bitcoin to be centralized because nodes will have to be run on business grade hardware. I'm not sure why it would be easier to arm the network because of this.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Holliday on October 09, 2015, 11:34:04 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 11:22:17 AM

Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.

Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right?

Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network?

Fuck that.

Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty.

If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node.

You might have your reasons to do so, yes you may choose not to do so. Indeed you don't "need" to run one...unless you care about monetary sovereignty which is where Bitcoin's true value resides.

But by all means go ahead use spv wallets, web "portals" (as in: and...it's gone), and other various Hearnias just make sure it don't come at no cost to me.

I don't need to pay from my own freedom to be free from trusted authority for these "users" inability to stuck sucking from the tit and always ask for a "supporting" hand to move forward.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 137. (Read 378996 times)