Craig Wright: "You dont need to hold the blockchain. Its ok if only banks do."

[Sr.Urbanist]

... hostile take over (or trying to do so) is only leading to ruining bitcoin. and taking over a ruined bitcoin has nothing in it for them!

That depends on time horizons.  I agree there have been childish games played. We would be better with one bitcoin, but parts of the community just want to push forward without thinking through the need to change BTC addresses with payment channels (as we we have seen on $LTC). I have never understood SegWit from a point other than when I first got into Bitcoin, I wanted to start a quick POS service to allow Bitcoin payment while immediately converting and skimming.  I found the answer, SegWit!  It's too bad the conversation is SegWit=moon and Floodcontrols=coffee

I go back-and-forth.  I can see bigger blocks to secure the blockchain and SegWit for POS programming. Both are helpful in their own respects.  I just can't help but wonder what is wrong with BIP9? It works.  I've never had it fail on me - aside from losing 0.8BTC to Mac HW failure or accidently sending a 0.008 fee tx (which I think is a front-end failure).  

I think we will only have one bitcoin.  If not, I'm still in this game but will put more attention on DASH for business dealings.

[hv_]

Every day i hear something from Craig Wright, i really want block split to happen to see which scaling solution actually can solve bitcoin problem rather than hear people claim their scaling solution is the best solution.

Has anyone proper data that can show how effictive a Raspi node is in reality?

Best on average with many on different locations?

As far as i know, Raspberry PI is doing fine with 1M blocksize, you just need big storage. But few people speculate Raspberry PI will struggle (even the newest type) if blocksize is increased a lot just like what BU wants.

The same holds for SW + LN. The RasPI is not the future node at all ( you will not have todays full security with PIs anyway).

I was asking for a real tech proof and some stats about the potential connection surface = real power of such a PI. I like the idea that any poor runs one, but I understand that if we want reach high adoption rate, we have enough bigger business hosting a node and the poor can happily safe their Satoshis Not running any node by EXACTLY same Network security, because running a PI node will have same effect than running a CPU miner today.

[thejaytiesto]

Wow!  What an underappreciated video.  I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue.

At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.

One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010.  However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885.  Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.

The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks.

[sgbett]

Wow!  What an underappreciated video.  I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue.

At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.

One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010.  However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885.  Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.

The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks.

That is true, but who needs a full copy of the blockchain that they have personally verified, and why?

[xcsler]

Someone can't simply create something revolutionary in the financial system as bitcoin (which stands against everything the banking system represents) and still support banks, this simply make no sense to me, the contradiction is definitely there. I wouldn't take a word from Craig Wright seriously. I'm not even sure why and how he is back suddenly.

I can see how someone would trust a banking system based on hard money while at the same time trying to destroy a banking system based on fiat currency. These are two very different types of banks.

[hv_]

Wow!  What an underappreciated video.  I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue.

At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.

One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010.  However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885.  Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.

The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks.

That is true, but who needs a full copy of the blockchain that they have personally verified, and why?

I fully understand his claims, wanting all to ensure the on chain safety. It is hard to get that this is not task of the simple hodlers,rather of the money makers / mearchants. It might be de-illusional that your RasPI is totally meaningless and have to relay on bigger ones.
But I have more problems to understand that they (small hodlers / blockers) will rather give away the on chain security to LN 2 nd layer crap... Oh wey.

[eaLiTy]

Let us forget about his claims as he is the satoshi, let us take into account what he said in the conference and about the different solutions he offered for different problems,about the split key system he explained ,so that you wont see another MtGox,that is what makes me interested,we must have the control of the private key we own and when we save it in web wallets or exchanges we will share the key with a time stamp so that no one steals others coins ,take the good part and let us debate on all those rather than asking for a proof of being the creator.

[squatz1]

This is one of the many reasons that everyone on here knows that Craig is a fraud and that no one is going to trust him on what he says, he tried to defraud this entire community by lying to every single one of us and telling us that he was Satoshi / our god. This is something that is utterly disgustingly to do to a community which holds some person to such a high standard, I would've been fine if this guy would've went into oblivion but for him to have the audacity to continue making horrid claims.

This guy deserves to fucking rot for what he did, he's a real POS

[Sr.Urbanist]

That is true, but who needs a full copy of the blockchain that they have personally verified, and why?

I wonder which would bring more capital. Let's do some numbers ...

Sen A:
RasPi = $100
HHD = $100
mEx = $2?
n = 30,000
 
Total value
$6,000,000 (sunk costs)
$60,000 (global monthly)

Sen B:
Super computer = ?
HHD = $20,000
mEx = $300
n = 500

Total value

? + $10,000,000 (sunk costs)
$150,000 (monthly expenditure)

You can change the numbers around, but a running copy of the blockchain is more important than one that's not exchanging information.  In my 0.8 BTC lost opinion, it's not worth running coins through Core. It doesn't even interact with Trezor. Copies should be spread around. 

You can change the numbers above and I'm sure I am wrong, but what this dude said was interesting.  The pictures of how Bitcoin works and the edges. Really interesting stuff ...

I love BTC!

[Sr.Urbanist]

This is one of the many reasons that everyone on here knows that Craig is a fraud ...

I am trying to get a YouTube body language expert to analyze his video.  Her channel is called Bombard's Body Language.  It's good.  She does Putin and rapists, presidents and comedians.  Maybe [FAKE!] Satoshi Nakamoto, Craig Wright, with some asking ...

[johnscoin]

Was Gavin trying to discredit himself? Some say he has been acting weird since the CIA meeting years ago.

"Some"

You should know BSCore and Theymos deliberately slandered Gavin, Mike Hearn, Coinbase.......

[rizzlarolla]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcOnvOVquo&t=2h24m43s

On the latest Craig Wright appearance there are some interesting claims. He says you don't need to hold the blockchain yourself, he attacks full validating nodes, he says it's all meaningless and you don't need it.

At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.

My question is simple: How can he be against people holding copies of the blockchain and validating their own transactions, which is what gives you the only way to be 100% certain that your money is not being (and i quote his term) manipulated?

He is not "against" you running your own node, just not prepared to allow Bitcoin to flounder because you want to run a full node on a raspi.
I agree with him.

You could upgrade and still run a full node. Maybe you could create a shared "local community" full node?

Another claim to analyze is that he says the more people use bitcoin, the more censorship resistant it becomes, even if the blockchain is huge, because at that point it's "too big too fail" because everyone is using it. He says there are 75.000 banks on earth, and makes the point of saying "if every bank ran a node, that's 75.000 nodes, so it's safer than now. Also, it's impossible that all banks on earth agree on a particular agenda/are manipulated for the same agenda, so this is not a problem".

There's a lot of claims like these that would require further inspection of the game theory at play because to me it sounds like half asses arguments or at least vague at times.

If Bitcoin got to a stage where "75,000" banks run full nodes, you can be sure many thousand other companies and individuals will also be running full nodes. That would be far more secure than today.

"too big to fail" here does not mean the government/tax payer will bail Bitcoin out!
"too big to fail" here means that banks, business and individual's running full nodes will be prepared/expecting to upgrade as needed.

If "75,000" banks were running full nodes, bitcoin would, by then, be orders of magnitude more valuable. (assumed?)
- meaning that you would be able to run your own full node - you could spend some of your Bitcoin capitol gain's!

Also, on the Q&A section when asked "what will you do with your bitcoin if you hardfork? will you dump the coins on legacy chain for the nChain chain?" he snaps and insults the guy. Can you fucking believe it?
I want to actually see what happens if there is a hardfork, because if there is a hardfork and he really believes his model is better AND he is really satoshi, then he will surely dump his million bitcoins to ruin the legacy chain's price? otherwise he is bullshitting and it's another proof he isn't satoshi.

I agree with his (satoshiesque?) viewpoint - big blocks, no segwit and as above.
However, he personally should stop with the (i am probably) satoshi bullshit - or prove it.
satoshi should know without proof...  it can only be considered bullshit?

----------------

vvv Followed by farmed account Iranus (identified by me when a 22 post newbie, now nearing 1000 posts) vvv.
Off topic? deflection? sig spam?  - ignored by the boss.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.msg16595082#msg16595082
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0

[Iranus]

ETH network has not enough complete nodes and look the result : less transaction and already stuck.

Really?  Last time I checked ETH has quite a lot of nodes.  We can't get a 100% accurate estimate of how many Bitcoin full nodes there are, because sites like this are only talking about full nodes with open ports.

A lack of full nodes is a problem because of the importance of decentralisation and removing the control of entities such as banks.  However, fewer full nodes would not result in less scalability - Bitcoin and ETH are just not scaled properly, which does not relate to the exact node count or the exact amount of hashrate.  These things are about security, not scalability.

[hv_]

Op has the issue with NOT understanding what was meant in context and pics out a phrase and changes the meaning into FUD.

Guess what? BScore Fanboys use this to brainwash all and trick us into unsafer on chain scaling 'solutions' that are clearly altcoin like + private 2 nd business on top.

Wake up and take your brain back!

[thejaytiesto]

Wow!  What an underappreciated video.  I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue.

At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money.

One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010.  However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885.  Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes.

The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks.

That is true, but who needs a full copy of the blockchain that they have personally verified, and why?

To guarantee that you are not using a modified blockchain that could contain some sort of exploit, attack or anything else.

When it comes to money and the idea to digitize it you need as much certainty as possible. Otherwise you might as well stick to fiat.

[mindrust]

Eveybody should run a full node because banks and companies are treacherous mother fuckers which can always stab you in the back like bitmain is doing right now.

I am not against the idea but i just wish we were getting paid by doing so, even a small amount would do the job. I kinda step back on this thought. If we were getting paid for running full nodes, people would spam the network with thousands of fake nodes. Only a master node system would solve this issue, and we are going to pay who to get one? Since nobody owns bitcoin...

*btw i watched some of the video. Craig is really something different. A very special kind of fucktard.

[NUFCrichard]

Well if only banks run full nodes, they can start to mess with it and stop transactions, as they see fit.
Then we have centralized mining in China, and centralized nodes in banks.

It isn't exactly the dream of Bitcoin that I think most of us had. It sounds very animal farm like, I look at the Bitcoin and I look at the Fiat, and I could see no difference.

[hv_]

Well if only banks run full nodes, they can start to mess with it and stop transactions, as they see fit.
Then we have centralized mining in China, and centralized nodes in banks.

It isn't exactly the dream of Bitcoin that I think most of us had. It sounds very animal farm like, I look at the Bitcoin and I look at the Fiat, and I could see no difference.

Sure. ONLY banks is just a very stupid example here.  You know any bank is doing this right now?  I do not. Extrapolate this into future? Not much will do. There will be a nice mix of hopefully ALL bigger ones....

[Sr.Urbanist]

If we were getting paid for running full nodes, people would spam the network with thousands of fake nodes. Only a master node system would solve this issue, ...

DASH has had my interest for this reason.  My concern has been the honeypots they create.  You can find a list of online MasterNodes here: http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html
There is one $180,000 in Panamá waiting for someone to get their paws on, unless it's highly secure and that takes us back to the centralized model.  I'm sure one could find a way in short time if on a RasPi.  Spending significant time in la Cuidad de Panamá ... I'm pretty sure it's a bank right off Balboa.

Here is my onion:

• It's time to stop the infighting
• We need to focus on merchant adoption

[mindrust]

If we were getting paid for running full nodes, people would spam the network with thousands of fake nodes. Only a master node system would solve this issue, ...

DASH has had my interest for this reason.  My concern has been the honeypots they create.  You can find a list of online MasterNodes here: http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html
There is one $180,000 in Panamá waiting for someone to get their paws on, unless it's highly secure and that takes us back to the centralized model.  I'm sure one could find a way in short time if on a RasPi.  Spending significant time in la Cuidad de Panamá ... I'm pretty sure it's a bank right off Balboa.

Here is my onion:

• It's time to stop the infighting
• We need to focus on merchant adoption

I know that dash has it. I am not buying a premined coin though. Not my style. And paying for master nodes also don't make much sense to me. Actually It would make sense only if we were burning the coins instead of giving them so somebody else. It would be like sacrificing your coins to the bitcoin god (burn address) for a greater good. (masternode payments)  

So i guess bitcoin is fine for what it is.