Generally, decentralized applications are lighter in weight
Do you honestly believe that BTC is lighter compared to ECB SEPA payments (Target2 ledger)?BTC has to broadcast the transaction to every node, while ECB uses a single centralized computer to process the transaction.
We don't use BTC because it's lighter or cheaper. Revolut offers SEPA instant payments for €0, while BTC is way more expensive and slower: https://mempool.space/
I am not talking about BTC, which was a decentralized protocol that had its initial infrastructure built in 2008-2009. There's no point talking about Bitcoin as a modern decentralized application and at that, it is not even a decentralized application, it is an entire blockchain, built on an infrastructure that is not relevant to what we are talking about, being a forum application with more decentralization than what is current.
So to answer your question, no, I do not believe that BTC is lighter than other solutions because I am already aware that there are many more solutions that are much more efficient.
Payments was never a topic here. Using technology similar to that of Bitcoin to decentralize Bitcointalk was never a discussion here until you introduced it. Why people are thinking that we need to use technology similar to Bitcoin to power a decentralized version of this forum is beyond me, as the two are not even closely similar in their core use cases.
I think you may be misunderstanding the point. He mentioned Bitcoin as an example of a sufficiently decentralized network compared to other payment networks. He is correct, though. A decentralized network can never be "lighter" than a centralized infrastructure. Why else do you think the entire internet is built on a simple client-server basis? The concept of decentralized networks wasnt invented yesterday, you know? And you are probably confusing the concepts of a decentralized network with a distributed network, which can be "lighter" with proper load balancing.
[https://blockchainengineer.com/centralized-vs-decentralized-vs-distributed-network/]
Actually, I'm not misunderstanding anything, I am the only one who is trying to stay on-topic by relating the conversation back to what is meant to be discussed:
Should Bitcointalk be decentralized.
I did not introduce payment systems into the conversation, cryptosize did, and the relevance to building a decentralized forum application vs. a decentralized payment protocol are two completely different conversations.
If you actually look at the root of the conversation, I was not the first to draw comparisons to Bitcoin, and it was wrong to do so in the first place. Decentralizing Bitcointalk is not the same as building a decentralized payment protocol. Payment protocols have no relevance to forum software, period.
I maintain that it is possible to build a lightweight forum software that is decentralized. I maintain that decentralizing the forum's software and governance has not enough correlation to building a similar architecture to that of Bitcoin, due to both serving completely different purposes, and therefore is off-topic conversation.
I also disagree that a decentralized network can not be lighter than that of a centralized one for the end user. We are in a new world of new possibilities as of 2023 and onward, as we are every year, and stating that decentralized networks can definitely not be lighter than that of a centralized network is an outdated opinion. No one is saying it's an easy feet, however if we take into account the amount of resources that Bitcointalk (should) have to achieve this feet, then it is definitely a possibility rather than it definitely not being possible.
The burden of proof lies on you...