Some compromise in privacy and potentially security, for reduced requirements in storage, bandwidth, number-crunching. Useful for cellphone clients, though many people use it on desktop as well. Look up SPV wallets for Bitcoin.
As I said, there are "users" of "crypto-currency" who aren't really using crypto-currency at all. You're letting someone else use it and then basically taking their word for it. Which, of course, means the using crypto-currency as unit of account is completely incidental & superfluous. It could have been anything, really.
Oh, I'm sure there are solutions. But that wasn't the point. Cash and credit cards just aren't always an ideal solution. Why does PayPal exist? And actually, Glorious brought it up in the context of sending payments rather than receiving. Also there credit cards have room for improvement, like foreign currency conversion fees.
The point is that crypto-currency is not even close to being ideal, despite all your pretensions to the contrary. It is essentially universally worse in every applicable context.
Not elevating anything. Just saying I find the general idea useful, and apparently I'm not the only one. It would be better if one could stick with just Bitcoin and not have to use alts, but as long as that isn't the case, switching to common alts is not a big deal.
You clearly don't find "the general idea" useful. You aren't even using it!
Completely trusting a centralized party to send money is the *LITERAL ANTITHESIS* of the general idea.
I mean, in actuality here what you are really prattling on about is the equivalent of Linden-Dollars.
What? I found a useful tool, I'm using it. If it lives up to its long-term promise, even better.
Delusion. You've already admitted that you "use" it extremely rarely, which is because of the reasons I've already detailed: when you find some random person-to-person item for sale that you even wish to buy, you can only use LTC if the other person does.
I mean, that's the best you can muster despite the fact that coiners constantly overstate and overplay this sort of thing. The claims get ridiculous, coiners are like "ATMs are everywhere" when in fact there's three in a particular region which only allow USD DEPOSITS and one of which is broken and one is missing.
My benchmark for calling Litecoin a mainstream crypto is not what's in the top N of the day (if so, why not pick the 3-month old Cardano, or Tron that was there recently and almost still is). Litecoin would have a problem if it was so far behind that it didn't have market support or liquidity. I'd say there are 3 mainstream1 cryptos: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum (maybe largely due to being the infrastructure for all these ICOs).
Yes, *YOU* say. Other cryptocurrency guys might have different opinions.
Do you seriously not see how absurd this is? You see an ad on craigslist for something you want, and it even says "I accept crypto". This isn't even a success for your argument here, because now you get to argue with that guy about whether or not litecoin is mainstream and therefore he should accept it.
That guy could easily say "lolwut, Charlie Lee just pumped & dumped it (HIS OWN COIN) and it's a complete knock-off clone of btc anyway. I'm long on Monero, I consider that mainstream and useful. I don't truck with ltc, sorry".Coiners say stuff like that all the time.
But the point is, there's nothing illusory about their gains, and from what I've seen them do, it wasn't that much of a headache to convert it to USD.
When I said "something is wrong here" about mt gox just weeks before it imploded, people *here* argued with me and said they *PERSONALLY* had *WITHDRAWN USD* from it and therefore I was FUD etc...
Of course, not only did the mt. Gox website belie that, but it was public knowledge that for months and months USD withdraws were impossible or and btc withdrawals were backlogged into infinity etc..
Hence, since coiners routinely state, emphatically, things that are outright make-believe, I take all such claims with a HUGE GRAIN OF SALT. Especially since people involved in frauds typically self-diminish their decisions and losses. It's simply not realistic that everyone who claims to have 100% RoI'd out actually did so.
Yes, you can get real money out of it, but only in small batches (they have explicitly stated withdrawal limits, which Captain Ned is desperately trying to tell you is A GIGANTIC RED FLAG). And, of course, most people don't even do that, they just let it ride.
Even then, that's basically blood money: every USD you suck out beyond the ones you put in is going to be the eventual loss of some other poor sucker. It's even worse than that, like the third law of thermodynamics it doesn't even balance out: there is a huge cost to running the system that no investor could ever get back.
But either way, no fees is better than lower fees.
These fees again...
You must have really strange nightmares.
You know, I have family members abroad, and I don't mean in highly developed normal global market participant countries.. Out of all the plentiful frustrations such a situation causes, currency fees have never once been mentioned.
You do not need to be running a full node to send and receive transactions. Since Bitcoin's beginning the ability to verify payments without running a full node has been part of it referred to as simplified payment verification. You are making a privacy and security trade off by using an SPV node wallet. The risk being your SPV node could be mislead if a majority of miners acted in a coordinated manor to mislead them and if there isn't a backbone of running full nodes, which would not accept the blocks in such an instance.
The whitepaper's SPV means downloading the entire chain but only keeping the block headers.
Section 8 of the whitepaper wrote:https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain
This is not what what the sort of SPV wallets you are referring to do, because they never touch the full chain. They all seem rely on a centralized service providing the UTXOs, because things like bip37 seem to be disabled by full nodes for the obvious reason that such a thing provides for an easy avenue to DOS: requesting a node randomly do lookups in a 150GB database is, ummm, rough
, especially since the transaction indexing defaults to off because it has normal operation performance implications...
There are also web wallets, which rely on putting trust entirely in a centralized service, and obviously that only goes as far as you can trust that entity (but it may be reasonable to trust that entity, this is up to you, there's nowhere in the BTC whitepaper or some Crypto-Currency Rulebook that says you can never trust centralized services again, to my knowledge).
Again, these aren't all that fundamentally different from the real-world SPV wallets, for the reason I've mentioned.
And, if you are relying on a centralized service, why are you using bitcoin? You might as well be using any other unit of account, as previously discussed.
Using a mobile client on your phone that is an SPV node would be reasonable for the low amount, low volume purchasing you do daily using your debit or credit card or paper cash. Buying groceries, paying for gas, sending a friend some money because he covered drinks last night, paying most of your bills, etc.
Bitcoin couldn't handle the transaction volume of my COUNTY if everyone in it used it for that. And that's allowing for 24 hours of settlement delay: during peak times it would be completely unusable. People would wait for hours and hours in the lines at the grocery store etc...
Full nodes contribute to the economic strength of the blockchain and enforce the consensus rules. They're the back bone. They're also the only way to use Bitcoin in a trustless way, plus they provide network services to the SPV nodes.
Except, in reality, they basically don't.
Which isn't surprising, because there is zero incentive for them to do it. Only miners get fees & block rewards, full nodes get nothing, and the amount of I/O etc... to handle everyone's filters to find the transactions they're interested in is unrelentingly brutal.
Full nodes are very centralized, and they are solely run on the goodwill of people who are ideologically committed to the project.
In other words, your vaunted "backbone" of this entire thing is entirely non-economic. It's running on charity.
and the acknowledgement of this has been in the Bitcoin whitepaper from the start.
No, the SPV in the whitepaper explicitly involves downloading the full chain but only keeping the blockheaders. That is not what the SPV wallets you are referring to actually do, and as I've said, they all seem to rely on a centralized service for the utxos because the overall network has very few full nodes and most, if not all, of them don't properly provide the functionality necessary for ad hoc filter-based querying of their UTXOs.