Does Bitcoin fail if not Peer-to-Peer and self custody?

[we-btc]

The Bitcoin white papaer: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

https://webtc.io

[1714915683]

1714915683

[1714915683]

1714915683

[1714915683]

1714915683

[1714915683]

1714915683

[Orpichukwu]

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

https://webtc.io

Please where in the white paper was that mentioned. In the last few pages of the bitcoin white paper, it's clearly stated that it does not need any form of third party in order to execute its transactions. That was its purpose from day one: to eliminate trusting someone to do it for you and explain why you can do it for yourself without needing approval from anyone.
 
Or did you read the back of the white paper? Or I was the one who did. It will be helpful if you can highlight the part that states the above statement that's getting you confused.

[The Cryptovator]

What do you want to express, actually? Bitcoin doesn't need a third party; that's why it's decentralized. If you need a third party, then it's centralised, and there's no difference between digital fiat andYou are thinking about something that doesn't exist. Where have you found something wrong? We don't really need any financial institutions for Bitcoin transactions.

[usekevin]

What do you want to express, actually? Bitcoin doesn't need a third party; that's why it's decentralized. If you need a third party, then it's centralised, and there's no difference between digital fiat andYou are thinking about something that doesn't exist. Where have you found something wrong? We don't really need any financial institutions for Bitcoin transactions.

Bitcoin itself decentralised cryptocurrency and it was the biggest reason for the survival over a decade.Some of the coin like ETH,BNB was the centralised coin.Both coin was managed by the Binance and Ethereum owner.The price of the bitcoin was based on the demand of the market,no one can control the bitcoin price movement.Except the market the price of the bitcoin was unpredictable one.The other way of control was made by the whale of the bitcoin in the market.This control also the short term control by the whales.

[Majestic-milf]

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash. 

Yeah, you know this and you're still seeking the opinion of others?  ..  asking for a third party simply means you'd require to ask permission before making a transaction and this person dictates how you spend your Bitcoin.
The reason custodial wallets services are not advisable for Bitcoin users is that they impose severe restrictions on your Bitcoin and are not even trustworthy and safe as they can also fall victims to hackers or funds being stolen and this defeats the purpose of Bitcoin being decentralized.

[OgNasty]

Mike Hearn famously announced Bitcoin was a failure back in 2016 (or was it 2017?). Anyway, it does seem that Bitcoin is not on a path to be a p2p currency as described in the whitepaper. However, it can still be transferred p2p even if it can’t scale and you can still self custody, so there is hope that Mile will turn out to be wrong. However, the jury is still out.

[coupable]

What do you want to express, actually? Bitcoin doesn't need a third party; that's why it's decentralized. If you need a third party, then it's centralised, and there's no difference between digital fiat andYou are thinking about something that doesn't exist. Where have you found something wrong? We don't really need any financial institutions for Bitcoin transactions.

Clearly, the OP would like to do analyzes based on unrealistic and arguably imaginary probabilities. Although this seems a little naive, it explains the confusion in the minds of many, especially those who find it difficult to comprehend the idea that there is a transfer system that is actually capable of working without the help of a third party. It is a culture that has been entrenched in people's minds due to the current payment systems that always require the presence of an intermediary.
I hope that the op’s vision is a little clearer now and I invite him to further examine the details of the Bitcoin protocol as detailed by Satoshi.

[we-btc]

I am continually surprised by the number of people and businesses that support third party solutions when they know that this will defeat the purpose of Bitcoin.  Almost every business in the space is promoting a third party solution driving more and more adoption from individuals who don't understand that they are not getting the benefits of a truly p2p money.  This is being done because profit is more important to most people.  I guess sovereignty comes second.

I asked the question because I wanted to see if the people on this forum understand the simple principle that Bitcoin has to be stored in a self custody wallet and sent over their own node for it to be a p2p transaction.  Any other setup violates the core tenants of Bitcoin.

How many people want a truly p2p solution and financial freedom?

[DooMAD]

It's the users who tend to fail when they don't utilise self-custody.  Bitcoin was designed to be used with a sender and one or more recipients without middlemen.  That's the most secure way to transact.  Just because some people have opted to trust middlemen with their funds, doesn't mean the concept as a whole fails.  It just means those users have chosen to weaken their own security.

[BVeyron]

The Bitcoin white papaer: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

https://webtc.io

That's actually a tough problem: decetralised system can follow only two paths: either centralisation (and complete loss of all the benefits of decentralization), or forking (which can bring the overall system to an end at some point). So, it's nearly impossible to create sustainable de entralised system which would successfully balance between these two problems.

[EL MOHA]

I asked the question because I wanted to see if the people on this forum understand the simple principle that Bitcoin has to be stored in a self custody wallet and sent over their own node for it to be a p2p transaction.  Any other setup violates the core tenants of Bitcoin.

How many people want a truly p2p solution and financial freedom?

I would tell you that almost every core bitcoiner will tell you that they frown upon a middle man when a P2P transaction is done, if you can go through the forum on centralized exchanges you see replies of members warning people off it and telling them to trust decentralized exchanges where there isn’t a middle man. But as we have it this technology is still new even if it is a more than a decade old, and this has made some people doubt the ability of a free P2P without middle man and as such the idea of an escrow comes in handy which is definitely something the centralized exchanges do. If you asked me I would say it doesn’t solve any problem and also doesn’t defeats any purpose of bitcoin rather it creates an open space for everyone to use it to the way that it suits them. This is probably why bitcoin is characterized as pseudonymous by some. But the idea of Satoshi wanting it to be a direct P2P still hasn’t been changed, it depends on your preference

[Obari]

I don't know how best to explain this but at some points I don't think Bitcoin would have survived this far with centralized exchanges or peer to peer at least not with all this loads of rules and regulations as well as restrictions placed on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general in most developing countries.
I'm glad that most countries especially big countries like Japan and rest are already welcoming Bitcoin and cryptocurrency because it will go a very long way to increase it's acceptance and if this developments where done since, then it's acceptance would have been more easier.

[we-btc]

Great point!!  Bitcoin can be used both ways.  Problem: most of the solutions provided by the market are third party because they benefit the provider and not the user.  The profit generating solutions require an additional revenue stream and that requires a third party in the transaction.  Can businesses provide solutions that don't centralize the transaction?

I think we can. Everyone needs their own node.  That was Satoshi's vision.  Each transaction from a privately held node. No node, no peer-to-peer.

There are two things that have to happen for a transaction to be p2p. First, each participant must have their own node and second, each participant must self custody their bitcoin.

If people want a new form of money that transcends the fiat currencies we have now, the only option available is Bitcoin used the way Satoshi intended. Otherwise we have fiat banking 2.0.

This concept is what gives Bitcoin it's value.  Without the potential to be a revolutionary money we are just using electricity to generate encryption codes.  Sounds like a waste of energy don't you think? But if that energy is used to create value stored in a new form of money then you have something.


https://webtc.io

[franky1]

It's the users who tend to fail when they don't utilise self-custody.  Bitcoin was designed to be used with a sender and one or more recipients without middlemen.  That's the most secure way to transact.  Just because some people have opted to trust middlemen with their funds, doesn't mean the concept as a whole fails.  It just means those users have chosen to weaken their own security.

quoting for posterity of the guy that has been ignorantly promoting that everyone should offramp theur value security to a sub bridge network that requires middlemen routers and custodian partners to function

maybe topics like these will wake him up to his hypocrisy and he finally realises the failures of his own promotions, via reading his own words back to himself

the biggest failure are of these ignorant users that promote that using the bitcoin network is bad, flawed and then they promote actual flawed systems of middlemen as the 'solution'

[Fundamentals Of]

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

Or did you read the back of the white paper? Or I was the one who did. It will be helpful if you can highlight the part that states the above statement that's getting you confused.

You made me smile. The way you replied sounds like you're one of those impolite, insulting, and wise old-timers and legendaries here, or wannabes, who feel like they have the right to berate anybody for their ignorance rather than guide them.

Did you read the whitepaper yourself? I did it years ago and I didn't understand most of it, but it is not hard to remember that very familiar line. Try reading the whitepaper the other way around, from the first page rather than the last. You might find it right there in the very first line.

[DapanasFruit]

It's the users who tend to fail when they don't utilise self-custody.  Bitcoin was designed to be used with a sender and one or more recipients without middlemen.  That's the most secure way to transact.  Just because some people have opted to trust middlemen with their funds, doesn't mean the concept as a whole fails.  It just means those users have chosen to weaken their own security.

I agree with this 100%. People do have choices now and if there are others opting to be serviced by third-party platforms or solutions then it is their own right to do so...and this fact should not be tied with how good or how Bitcoin can be a failure. P2P is a big feature of Bitcoin and without it Bitcoin will never be Bitcoin but we can not forced it to all people in case they are attracted to something that for them can be more convenient or attractive.

[kizlod]

Bitcoin doesn't fail anyone. It's the users who choose to "keep" their BTC on exchanges that are failing it. It's decentralized, you can't take away from it.

[Bananington]

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

You have failed to use bitcoins properly when you as a user do not use P2P for transactions, or when you delegate the duty of keeping your bitcoins safe to a CEX. Self custody is meant to be practiced, an investor in bitcoins knowing the exact security measures and practices to prevent theft of their bitcoins is how it should be, not the dependence on a CEX to keep your coins. You make the purpose of bitcoins to fail when you use bitcoins improperly.

[Cookdata]

The Bitcoin white papaer: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”

I think that if Bitcoin has a third party in the transaction then it fails to serve it's stated purpose to create a decentralized digital cash.  I would like to hear from people who have a different opinion on this.

https://webtc.io

You know one thing about Bitcoin, its freedom! Bitcoin is a pure peer-to-peer transaction which still stands today, people send Bitcoin to each other the way they like but now, there are groups of people that brand exchange as creativity(centralized exchanges) which some people feel is safer for them( I don't blame, them, that is what they grow up to see when they come around) but using decentralized is more of p2p than centralized exchanges.

One of the challenges is that you can't stop how people want to use their bitcoin, it's meant to be pair to pair but some people also want trade their bitcoin into other branded altcoins they need or want to have, and the fastest way this can be done safely without running into a scam is through the middle man (third party in this case), so this is what you can't change but Bitcoin remain a pair-2-pair transaction.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It just means those users have chosen to weaken their own security.

I'd argue that a large group of users defeating the purpose of p2p cash does harm to the entire network, as a whole, besides weakening their own security. Take a look on merchants that use BitPay or Coinbase as their payment processors. They clearly do harm to themselves, but that particular practice discourages their clients to paying in bitcoin. (In case you didn't know it, both implement KYC and treat the currency as non-fungible)

Ultimately, I think we're approaching greater decentralization as times goes by. People who forfeit their custody don't last long in bitcoin. We now have high-volume, peer-to-peer, decentralized exchanges that act as superior alternative to people who merely want to buy and sell bitcoin.