3 ms·

Using any third-party removes the benefit of not using a third-party. Also I'd test your speed report, but ultimately I don't want waste 300GB or 85GB of my mo

by Klinky 6y ago

Using any third-party removes the benefit of not using a third-party. Also I'd test your speed report, but ultimately I don't want waste 300GB or 85GB of my monthly download cap on that experiment. In the past download was slow and CPU usage was high while syncing. I don't see people running to devote a large portion of their internal storage or download cap for crypto, unless they are crypto enthusiasts.

boring_twenties 6y ago
> Using any third-party removes the benefit of not using a third-party. No, it doesn't. Why would you make such an absurd statement? Using a remote node is nothing like using a centralized payment processor. For one thing, they can't gain access to your funds. For another, there are thousands that you can use interchangeably.
- Klinky 6y ago
  It's as simple as it sounds. Relying on a third-party means you're relying on a third-party. If you're relying on a completely hosted webwallet, then you really don't know that they don't have access to your funds. If you use something like Electrum then there is less risk, but you're still relying on a third-party to relay accurate information to you about the blockchain, which could possibly open yourself up for attacks(albeit complex and likely limited in scope). Every new tool/service adds more layers, and means more trust of third parties is required.
  - boring_twenties 6y ago
    > which could possibly open yourself up for attacks(albeit complex and likely limited in scope) It's laughable to compare this to using a third party which can hold your funds indefinitely and censor your transactions with no recourse for you. That's very simple, and unlimited in scope. Sure, running a local node is even better, but using a remote one doesn't "remove the benefit." That's nonsense. It removes maybe the bottom 1% of the benefit while leaving the other 99% intact.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      There are conveniences associated with the banking system, such as someone compromising your account, there is a large chance you'll get your money back. Unless you're friends of the crypto devs to force a fork, then you're likely screwed with crypto if your wallet is compromised. I didn't say it removed all benefit, but removed the benefit of "not relying on a third party", because you are. It sounds like you're saying "you can most likely trust those third parties", which is not the point of being independent.
      - boring_twenties 6y ago
        No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying that the level of trust required in a remote node is so minimal as to be almost negligible. Realistically, the worst they could do is deny you service, at which point you can just switch to any other of the thousands of nodes out there. It's simply not comparable to trusting a third party that can block your transaction without recourse and/or hold your funds indefinitely.

by Klinky 6y ago

boring_twenties 6y ago

> Using any third-party removes the benefit of not using a third-party. No, it doesn't. Why would you make such an absurd statement? Using a remote node is nothing like using a centralized payment processor. For one thing, they can't gain access to your funds. For another, there are thousands that you can use interchangeably.

Klinky 6y ago
It's as simple as it sounds. Relying on a third-party means you're relying on a third-party. If you're relying on a completely hosted webwallet, then you really don't know that they don't have access to your funds. If you use something like Electrum then there is less risk, but you're still relying on a third-party to relay accurate information to you about the blockchain, which could possibly open yourself up for attacks(albeit complex and likely limited in scope). Every new tool/service adds more layers, and means more trust of third parties is required.
- boring_twenties 6y ago
  > which could possibly open yourself up for attacks(albeit complex and likely limited in scope) It's laughable to compare this to using a third party which can hold your funds indefinitely and censor your transactions with no recourse for you. That's very simple, and unlimited in scope. Sure, running a local node is even better, but using a remote one doesn't "remove the benefit." That's nonsense. It removes maybe the bottom 1% of the benefit while leaving the other 99% intact.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    There are conveniences associated with the banking system, such as someone compromising your account, there is a large chance you'll get your money back. Unless you're friends of the crypto devs to force a fork, then you're likely screwed with crypto if your wallet is compromised. I didn't say it removed all benefit, but removed the benefit of "not relying on a third party", because you are. It sounds like you're saying "you can most likely trust those third parties", which is not the point of being independent.
    - boring_twenties 6y ago
      No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying that the level of trust required in a remote node is so minimal as to be almost negligible. Realistically, the worst they could do is deny you service, at which point you can just switch to any other of the thousands of nodes out there. It's simply not comparable to trusting a third party that can block your transaction without recourse and/or hold your funds indefinitely.