Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 06:35:45 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 15, 2015, 06:23:45 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 06:16:01 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 15, 2015, 06:13:06 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 06:08:27 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 15, 2015, 06:03:26 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 05:44:29 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 15, 2015, 05:38:26 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 05:13:47 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 15, 2015, 12:18:14 PM

Do you know what a third-party is?

Yes I do, and you quoted what I said out of context. I said that some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes which can be put up by anyone in a decentralized fashion. I also argued that relying on layer two protocols would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space.

SPV wallets connecting to full nodes = third party risk. no amount of spinning can get you out of this.

Layer two protocols like Lightning rely on no third-party custody therefore you don't have to trust anyone with you money to use them.

Layer two protocols are third parties as well. Not being able to practically transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly because of it becoming prohibitively expensive after increased adoption would translate into a much greater reliance on third parties, compared to SPV wallets. I am not spinning anything since I never claimed that SPV wallets do not rely on third parties at all, even if it is decentralized in its execution.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 15, 2015, 04:36:11 PM

Using a SPV wallet does not necessarily mean relying on a third party since some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes

You realize you are doing it again right, you are quoting me out of context. Since in the next sentence I clearly say that: "Having to use a layer two protocol however would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space." The emboldened part of the text implies the acknolegement that SPV wallets do also partially relly on third parties, in the same way that a layer two protocol would as well.

Unfortunately that is wrong. Forcing SPV dependence by making full nodes too expensive for regular people to run is much worst than having them use an open payment protocol that cannot steal or censor their funds for casual transactions

Another straw man argument, I have never said that people will be forced to use SPV wallets because full nodes will become to expensive, actually I have stated the opposite of this. People will still be able to run full nodes from home even with eight megabyte blocks.

Do you have scientific data to prove this?

Consider this from Patrick Stateman this weekend:

Assuming yearly 20% increase blockchain size & 10% reduction in bandwidth costs, after 15-20 years no new nodes can enter system except maybe huge datacenter operations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=7331

Wouldn't have guessed this heh?

Hilarious another straw man argument lol. In this case I have not been arguing for a 20% increase per year. I was just saying that I can run a full node with eight megabytes today, and that most people within the developed world could also do so on their home desktop computers without that causing any major problems in terms of decentralization.

yo, I can't be bothered with your simple ass anymore. who do you think you fooling trying to politic your way out of every discussions. are you running for president of the free shit army or something?

you really are coming at me with this stupid "most people within the developed world" bullshit after I just presented you with hard data that this would break Bitcoin?