Bitcoin Forum

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,

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.

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.

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 = is used to describe the whole concept of bitcoin or the protocol itself
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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

I believe you can still 'use' bitcoin even if not running a node.

It is the users that create the network effect.

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. (https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/spv.html) So I can say we are using bitcoin even we aren't running full node (Bitcoin core).

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.

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!



This one does support above assumptions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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).

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

@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!

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.

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.

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?

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.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. 8)

(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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The question is to know what matters to people more, "Paypal" or censorship-resistance. I believe many posters in the forum still hasn't understood why Bitcoin was designed the way it was designed.


For context, franky1 answered the first poll, "If you don't run a full node, are you actually using Bitcoin?", he answered no, which is right. But why was he saying that users shouldn't run a full node, and that full nodes are a nuisance, in our debates? 8)