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

[brg444]

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!

[sgbett]

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.

[brg444]

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?

[coalitionfor8mb]

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.

The definition itself is a bit contradictory.
I guess, Satoshi gave us a puzzle rather than a solution.

Not that every user should be running a node, but enough users should be able to run one.

[sgbett]

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?

"...would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another..."

you are assuming that each party is a peer

satoshi said himself that at scale, not everyone would run a full node, that users would run lightweight wallets.

by "bitcoin payment network" I mean the people doing the full node thing.

[Holliday]

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?

[coalitionfor8mb]

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?

"...would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another..."

you are assuming that each party is a peer

satoshi said himself that at scale, not everyone would run a full node, that users would run lightweight wallets.

by "bitcoin payment network" I mean the people doing the full node thing.

What Satoshi didn't say was at which point it would be appropriate to move to that configuration.

[knight22]

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.

[Holliday]

Is the network more or less robust if home based users are capable of effectively running a full node?

Is it important that the network remain robust?

Would it be easier to attack Bitcoin if home based users are no longer capable of running a full node?

[Holliday]

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.

[brg444]

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.

[knight22]

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.

[knight22]

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?

[QuestionAuthority]

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

[brg444]

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".

[brg444]

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.

[coalitionfor8mb]

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.

[Holliday]

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.

[brg444]

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]

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.