Frogolocalypse

Your money has been hacked. You just don't recognize it.

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-m...

PS. Every standard sized bitcoin transaction bar the past three days (and those will too), that people paid over 5c for has been committed to the blockchain.

You need a dictionary more than you need the white-paper :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer

> one that is of equal standing with another : equal

If you aren't running a node, you're not equal, and therefore, by definition, not a peer.

> intrinsically deflationary, and thus cannot serve as money.

It is hard getting out of the inflationary currency mind-set, I recognize that.

> it's just dumb.

It's great. The money put on my debit card card a few months ago means that the beers I buy today are 1/3 of the price of what they were relative to the time the money was put on the card. And you know what's better than beer? Good beer on special.

I have a bitcoin debit card. I use it to pay all of these things. Your argument is akin to a person in the US saying that a person from Europe using their visa card, isn't using real money, because you don't control it.

There is no such thing as a trustless implementation of a light client. Funnily enough, it was one of the things Satoshi could never get to work.

What do you mean core? Core doesn't run my node. I do. If you can't convince the peers in bitcoin to run your node client, you don't have a solution. I know this, because I do run a node, and I am a peer in peer-to-peer cash. And I, personally, have rejected your scalability plans, because I, personally, being a peer in peer-to-peer cash, have rejected your node client. I was not happy with your security model, and therefore I, with all of the other bitcoin peers, rejected it. Which is why bitcoin remains bitcoin, and failed fork after failed fork attempts remain the failed fork attempts. Because you don't have enough peers willing to follow your consensus change.

Bitcoin nakamoto consensus in action. It is a beautiful thing.

> Anyone who is confident in the mainstream view of money

That belief structure is being challenged as we speak.

> Tell that to all those people whining about the Mtgox bankruptcy proceeding

The only thing that proved, is that you can't trust a bank.

> because there is no "trusted third party"

If you don't run your own node, you need to trust a 3rd party to transact with the blockchain, because you require someone elses node in order to record a bitcoin transaction. So you are, by definition, not a peer, because you are not equal to a person who runs a node, because you need to trust a 3rd party.

Perhaps it should give you pause with that belief structure when you realize the word 'mining' doesn't even exist in the bitcoin whitepaper. It is only the nodes that exist, because it is only the nodes that validate, and everything that didn't have anything to do with validation is rightly considered a secondary concern of the protocol.

So there are nodes, which are peers. And there are people who need nodes for performing bitcoin transactions, and some of those people are miners, and some of them are just making good-ol-fashioned transactions. The correct term is "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which create blocks". Or "I am a peer, and I use this node for my transactions, which are payments."

Download it for yourself and see.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

What it did, was it made it possible to create a decentralized store of value without the need of a central authority. And that has definitely made people question their understanding of what money even is.

> Isn't a node a process on the network that is mining blocks?

No. It is only the validation that is important, because it is only the validation that ensures that consensus is maintained between nodes, and valid transactions can be included in the blockchain. Nodes even define the algorithm that miners must use in order to produce valid blocks.

There has been a hard education for people over the past year that have carried an incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works, and that has been encouraged by centralized companies that are attempting to wrest control of bitcoin away from its nodes. There have been four wildly unsuccessful hostile fork attempts (XT/Classic/BU/2x), and two in which alt-coins were forked (BCH/BGLD) from bitcoin in order to attempt to convince people to use their alt-coin instead of bitcoin. All of these attempts have been failures, because all of these attempts have not understood how bitcoin works, and the fact that nodes are the peers in bitcoin, and they police and enforce consensus.

Haha. That's golden.

Reality seems to disagree with you.

That is the beauty of it. It is only eight pages long, but fundamentally changes the concept of money.

The only thing that people should recognize is that it doesn't really try to explain the game theory behind it. It is a technical paper. When it all sinks in, it becomes clear that it is pure genius, but that certainly took me a while to grasp.

It is also important to understand in technical terms what a 'peer' is in bitcoin. A peer is a node, which is a client that validates all transactions and blocks in the blockchain. It is this understanding which forces people to respect the resource requirements of nodes, because any reduction in nodes is a reduction in peers. Any increase in resources requirements must be carefully planned and implemented to ensure the security of the network is maintained.

Decentralized censorship and inflation resistant savings account.

Actually, what he was doing was explaining the concept of how nodes enforce nakamoto consensus in order to validate transactions. It had absolutely zero to do with valuation.

That is indeed a hell of a problem. The only thing you could objectively do is to nominate the bitcoin client that you use in order to retrieve coins. That includes the version. "Alice pays Bob 1.0 in year 2020 using bitcoin core node client v0.15.2"

> “Given that this is a new product, as expected we are evaluating the specifications and risk attributes for the bitcoin futures contracts as part of our standard due diligence process,”

How can you be diligent at identifying risks in bitcoin derivatives? O_o

> Which is the use-case of bitcoin in your opinion?

Decentralized censorship and inflation resistant savings account.

There are lot of people that can't understand the use-case of bitcoin, and can't understand why it has value if it doesn't meet theirs, yes.

There is a lot of certainty in your statement for a bunch of guesses.

There are lot of people that can't understand the use-case of bitcoin, and can't understand why it has value if it doesn't meet theirs, yes.

You need to learn how bitcoin works and what a node does.

You should invest in litecoin. They have had the blockspace you're looking for for years.

Where you say 'bet', I say 'adopt'. I have adopted crypto as my store of value reference. It's working out quite well.

Nodes are peers. If you don't own one, especially if you can't run one, and you don't use it to secure your transactions on the blockchain, you aren't one.

You skipped right over the peer part, even though the word is used twice, and started talking about the cash part.

It isn't momentary. It is decentralized savings.

Is Armstrong involved in it? It's an attack. I have nothing against the business of coinbase. They provide a service and are compensated for it. He needs to just butt his head out of technology governance.

> What is the value proposition that is actually in play here,

Debt-fueled inflation resistant money. It is right in the statement in the genesis block detailing a bank bailout.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block