Interesting poll.
I would say "I use bitcoin" (the coin) without running the node, but that certainly is not the right/secure way to use Bitcoin. I think full/reasonble participation in the network consensus with full node should be the right way to use it. 
Well, running a full node is abit difficult, and I can't be the only one using bitcoin the right way while lots of other people can't.

Honestly you should be separating a Bitcoin user using it as a payment as well as a Bitcoin user using it as a payment at the same time contributing to BTC's network. In the first place Satoshi created Bitcoin as a P2P solution and I don't think he said anything about Bitcoin users in order to be a true user he/she needs to run their own full node. For one not all Bitcoin users have the capacity both financiall and intellectually to run a full node by themselves, yeah sure it would be easy if we read some guides to remove the "intellectual" part but that will only solve the problem for people who have the financial capacity to run a full node. IMHO using Bitcoin as a consumer and accepting Bitcoin as a producer is enough to show that you fully support Bitcoin as a currency.

My answer is Yes!

The miners are the backbone of the netwrok while node operators form the skeleton of the network. However, the general bitcoin users are the muscles of the network because without users, a network makes no sense! But we can't really expect everyone to run a full bitcoin node.

If running a full bitcoin node becomes a mandate, it won't be long before its value comes to zero. We can't really expected every single users to run a node. It will just hinder its growth!

We have only eight replies. That's disappointing, but it has just been 24 hours. I'm waiting for DooMAD, d5000, and from the other side, franky1, aliasharif, and of course gmaxwell's opinion would make the topic more educational.

Plus, I don't care if you run a node or don't run a node, but all of your opinions towards educating ourselves in this topic will be indispensible.

I have voted for YES, because I believe who have control of your funds, I mean if you have control over your private keys then you are the owner of this bitcoin and you are using bitcoin by yourself. All the bitcoins stored into blockchain always, only who have access private keys they could spend only. Who have private keys they could validate transaction via SPV wallet like Electrum even you aren't using full node. Here you would read how SPV ( Simple Payment Verification) validate a transaction. So I can say we are using bitcoin even we aren't running full node (Bitcoin core).

But he can still use the bitcoin though there is partial confirmation of the transaction. This can go on with the next node as well. I believe as soon as the transaction is in broadcasting and stage and once your receive the BTC in your wallet, then they are ready to use for further transaction if any despite of partial confirmation.
Of course correct me I am wrong and add more to this please!



This one does support above assumptions.

This truly depends on the definition of using bitcoin.
IMO using bitcoin is defined as participating in the bitcoin network by using the bitcoin protocol.

And in this case - even with only 1 out of 3 keys - this would fall under the category of using bitcoin.
With 2 out of 3 keys hold by a 3rd party, this might not be the way it is intended to be used as decentralized peer-2-peer money, but it still is used in a proper way.

But running a full node doesn't have anything to do with using bitcoin, IMO.

I wish I was one of the few who answered first. I usually read other comments before I post but I'm not going to do it this time to test my little knowledge.

The way I understand the question, it is asking if I use the Bitcoin network even if I don't run a full node and not validating my own transactions. I think Yes. The wallet that I am using, even if it's SPV client, is still connected to a full node and everytime I send, I am also using the Bitcoin network. Needless to say, I am not so sure about my answer but I'm open for correction/s.

Does it really need to be a mining node?
I think you are confusing validating a transaction that goes to the mempool and confirmation of the valid transactions.