You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does niot live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users. Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions. Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this. Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved. Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be. lol this is blatantly false and you know it. Ive already gone through all of this with you on why andd how bitcoin is a settlement system.. Yup but it didn't make any sense from any economic point of view and none actual bitcoin financial institutions want this anyway. http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/So it won't happen and bitcoin will be forked out at some point. What a lame with his fiat companies  How many of these have positive cash flow denominated in Bitcoin? Completely irrelevant comment. Irrelevant? I don't see how. These companies are irrelevant yes since most of them are only banking parasites trying to fit Bitcoin into their paradigm attempting to create closed gardens they can control. A majority of them have no Bitcoin balance to speak of and are nothing but a bunch of old fiat money infrastructures and bureaucracy. It's likely half the amount of their venture raises are used to bribe financial and government officials so they can also get in the club. As any entity on the Bitcoin network they are to be judged on their peer participation, bitcoin balance and reputation. Your delusion that they have any importance is spurious and demonstrates how much of a low level noob you are. Bitcoin doesn't need these VCs and these entrepreneurs. It will succeed as a store of value and a peer-to-peer network for private payments. We absolutely can make it without your broken consumer attittude and your "mass adopters". Any thing the masses cling to typically turns into a worthless piece of shit anyway. We stand to make sure this doesn't happen to Bitcoin and that's why if you're not happy with the code, fork yourself. |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does niot live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users. Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions. Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this. Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved. Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be. lol this is blatantly false and you know it. Ive already gone through all of this with you on why andd how bitcoin is a settlement system.. Yup but it didn't make any sense from any economic point of view and none actual bitcoin financial institutions want this anyway. http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/So it won't happen and bitcoin will be forked out at some point. What a lame with his fiat companies How many of these have positive cash flow denominated in Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users. Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions. Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this. Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved. Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be. lol this is blatantly false and you know it. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto: "I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume." Yes, Satoshi had forethought of the payment channels and other open networks I'm referring to. I'm sure he knew someone would come up with something like Lightning. |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users. Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions. Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this. Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful for retail transaction to happen on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved. Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be. |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. What's the point of running a full node if you can't use it because blocks are bloated anyway. "Running a node is the only way to verify you balance privately without signaling your intention to the NSA" Your full node is to be used in the future mostly to settle or resolve disputes between the numerous open source payment systems to come. |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. |
|
|
|
Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.
The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today. No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless. The spam attack proved the spam limit is useless |
|
|
|
Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:
"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."
Boring appeal to authority. BTW had you no shame sharing the misleading "article" of a known scammer!?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=998257.msg12620721#msg12620721 |
|
|
|
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. Then bitcoin will never get anywhere if it only focus on being overly decentralized. It doesn't adds any utility to the system, won't bring any new participants and does't add any new value proposition. If bitcoin can't scale, then EVERY projects built around it will move to another system, either an altcoin or a fork. Miners will go where the value is because they don't mine for idealogical reasons. please be the first and fork off Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner than you might think. Bitcoin is here now and it is already a destructor of worlds. http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.htmlBitcoin as is doesn't fits the needs of a broad market. Deal with it. great cause we don't need broad market of suckers like you. |
|
|
|
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. Then bitcoin will never get anywhere if it only focus on being overly decentralized. It doesn't adds any utility to the system, won't bring any new participants and does't add any new value proposition. If bitcoin can't scale, then EVERY projects built around it will move to another system, either an altcoin or a fork. Miners will go where the value is because they don't mine for idealogical reasons. please be the first and fork off Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner than you might think. Bitcoin is here now and it is already a destructor of worlds. http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html |
|
|
|
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. Then bitcoin will never get anywhere if it only focus on being overly decentralized. It doesn't adds any utility to the system, won't bring any new participants and does't add any new value proposition. If bitcoin can't scale, then EVERY projects built around it will move to another system, either an altcoin or a fork. Miners will go where the value is because they don't mine for idealogical reasons. please be the first and fork off you clown. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
...."a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash" I'm not certain how it is you are attempting to twist these words but surely it means every user wishing to participate/transact in a truly peer-to-peer manner needs to run a full node. There is no way around it. What is "the bitcoin payment network" anyway if not a collection of its users? |
|
|
|
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? FEAR NOT! "Decentralized datacenters" are on the way! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
