Quote from: DooMAD on October 18, 2017, 08:18:05 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on October 18, 2017, 05:45:14 PM

I think people has been lied to by telling them that they are in bitcoin when they don't even run full nodes. Any transaction that is not sent from a full node you control is not a real bitcoin transaction as far as im concerned, or might I say, a sovereign one.

If you are using SPV wallets, you aren't using Bitcoin. SPV wallets can be ok temporarily, but in times like these, you must show how much skin in the game you have, and defending against the segwit2x attack with a Bitcoin Core node is a must.

That sounds like an unfeasible expectation, to put it mildly. By asking every participant to run a full node, all you would be doing is driving casual users away. The option should be there for those who genuinely wish to run a non-mining node, but it shouldn't be some sort of elitist "you're not really one of us unless you meet our standards" kind of BS. Also, way to relegate many of the smartphone users from the poorer parts of the world into the category of worthless passengers with "no skin in the game". Your entitlement is showing.

And again, whilst it tends to be the prevailing narrative on these boards that 2x is some sort of "attack", some would merely see it as a difference of opinion and wouldn't feel the need to "defend" Bitcoin like it was some sort of fragile infant with an autoimmune disease. I'd like to think it's a little more resilient than that. Think about this carefully:

What's the point in even *having* a consensus mechanism if you're too afraid to let it do its job?

If you think it's better to put a gun to everyone's head and tell them exactly what to run, the consensus mechanism is wholly redundant. You might as well close the source as well while you're at it. No one can make any more forks then. Would that make you happy?

The entire idea behind it is that you don't need trust the other network participants or "defend" the network from those you might disagree with. Everyone runs what they want and there's no need for brigading. The network will sort itself out. Bitcoin doesn't require any populist uprisings to rally behind certain developers in order to function. It doesn't need you to shelter it from a reality that isn't nearly as harsh as you make it out to be. It's self-regulating for a reason.

Bitcoin IS elitist in nature. If you are not validating your own transactions, you are not really using bitcoin, it's really that simple. If you are trusting someone else, then you can't call it trustless or permissionless, it's as trustless and permissionless as whoever you are trusting to wants it to be.

Sure, average joe is way better off using an SPV wallet than a bank account when it comes to sovereign money and privacy, but let's be real.

Quote

What's the point in even *having* a consensus mechanism if you're too afraid to let it do its job?

If you think it's better to put a gun to everyone's head and tell them exactly what to run, the consensus mechanism is wholly redundant. You might as well close the source as well while you're at it. No one can make any more forks then. Would that make you happy?

Anyone can fork the coin. Bitcoin Cash did it right. Bitcoin Gold will do it right. Segwit2x is NOT doing it right because they pretend to call it "BTC" in exchanges, and often times they hate the fact that an exchange will list both BTC and B2X, because they hate that their coin would be exposed having no economic backing behind bribed CEO's into supporting GarzikCoin. Let the market decide, then you will see the market doesn't want this shitcoin2x.

Again, Bitcoin is NOT CEO's gathering and deciding what Bitcoin is, the market will prove this right (and that is why they are scared of it).