BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver - page 2.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on August 20, 2018, 09:31:15 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 20, 2018, 03:15:59 AM

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running?

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

Quote

If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes?

As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

Quote

If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

Ok but if non-mining full nodes have no power on the network then what was the UASF and the NO2X movements? Were they not comprised of users running non-mining full nodes?

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 20, 2018, 03:15:59 AM

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running?

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

Quote

If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes?

As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

Quote

If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

maskeffec

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 250

So they created a core support team that wants to produce altcoins that have satoshi genesis blocks and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data, such as copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. aluminum bitcoin. but I better ignore it. There is only one bitcoin. Roger Ver tries his best to sabotage the bitcoin.com site and talk about bitcoin OG all day.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running? If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes? If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

pushups44

sr. member

Activity: 854

Merit: 281

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 08, 2018, 12:31:28 AM

Quote from: Steamtyme on August 07, 2018, 01:47:42 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 12:08:30 PM

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:

@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

I have always doubted them since the day they tweeted that they were "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network. I believe that it was made to fail, and planned, for Roger Ver to tell the world that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to attacks. But it does not show to be the case.

Yeah, if that tweet really was made by them, it makes them look flaky and utterly lacking in credibility, given that they claimed to be fighting to support bitcoin. In my view all markets and especially commodities are manipulated, so there is no reason to single out bitcoin for this.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 14, 2018, 01:08:24 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 13, 2018, 09:17:45 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 09, 2018, 12:52:21 AM

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Then would'nt that statement be in opposition to

Quote

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

this statement? I am officially now confused. Hahaha.

::sigh::

No, the statements are not in opposition. You still seem to be under the delusion that centralization of non-mining validators (which you persist in mistakenly calling 'nodes') matters. As I have already explained to you (repeatedly...), the count of non-mining validators HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE NETWORK.

So yes - very few non-mining validators would be relative centralization of non-mining validators, but no - this condition does not matter to the network.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Everyone is welcome to join the debate and make an explanation in jbreher's place. Read my last post, saying that I am now officially confused. Haha.

It has been a discussion and debate of learning and knowledge finding. Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful posts.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on August 13, 2018, 09:17:45 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 09, 2018, 12:52:21 AM

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Then would'nt that statement be in opposition to

Quote

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

this statement? I am officially now confused. Hahaha.

Quote

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Ok, but in a more practical sense, running your own node does make you validate your own transactions without the need for 3rd party trust.

Quote

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

It is also a positive thing to scale up the network with nodes increase than decrease over time. I believe more research on low latency block propagation, efficiency, and speed is a must.

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 639

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

Quote from: jbreher on August 13, 2018, 09:17:45 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 09, 2018, 12:52:21 AM

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Quote

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

Quote

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

Ronald Ver should be charged for BITCOIN TREASON Shocked

muhahaha

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 09, 2018, 12:52:21 AM

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Quote

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

Quote

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: gembitz on August 08, 2018, 10:12:56 AM

Quote from: MemoryDealers on June 29, 2018, 03:35:33 AM

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case. Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

are you retarded?

BCH will NEVER be bitcoin ... never ever.

Grin

Bcash shills r obvious = n00b!!

I believe Roger Ver would have more of a point if he starts delivering the message that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin".

Because no one or no company owns the word "Bitcoin". Like no one owns the word "Linux", there is Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Linux Mint, etc.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on August 08, 2018, 01:20:54 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 07, 2018, 01:14:56 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 11:46:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 06, 2018, 12:13:03 AM

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we?

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.

Quote

The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter? Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 639

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

Quote from: MemoryDealers on June 29, 2018, 03:35:33 AM

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case. Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

are you retarded?

BCH will NEVER be bitcoin ... never ever.

Grin

Bcash shills r obvious = n00b!!

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 07, 2018, 01:14:56 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 11:46:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 06, 2018, 12:13:03 AM

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we?

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.

Quote

The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Steamtyme on August 07, 2018, 01:47:42 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 12:08:30 PM

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:

@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

I have always doubted them since the day they tweeted that they were "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network. I believe that it was made to fail, and planned, for Roger Ver to tell the world that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to attacks. But it does not show to be the case.

Steamtyme

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 2037

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 12:08:30 PM

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:

@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

Enjoyed watching you and Wind_Fury discuss the network.

~~I'm going to lock the topic, as there is no need for it to be around.~~ Request received to reopen topic

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on August 06, 2018, 11:46:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 06, 2018, 12:13:03 AM

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we? The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:

@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 06, 2018, 12:13:03 AM

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

I have contemplated on this debate, and I admit my mistake, and that it is true that Bitcoin's consensus security does not come from the amount of "users" running full nodes, but from the unableness of bad actors from changing the "rules" from both the mining side and the client side.

But we will not have a network that will have real full scale consensus security if we let miners dictate consensus freely by saying "only mining nodes matter" which Roger Ver and some from community are saying. Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Topic: BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver - page 2. (Read 1175 times)