Bitcoin Forum

Check https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0okwaw and https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0oik7j, please. Are those centralization concerns legit? I suspect that any real criticism will be shadowbanned on sites controlled by Ethereum marketing team, so I'm asking here.

It could be.  But it's good the all the Proof of Concept(s) are shown and talked about in order to find a solution early.  Serenity's release and the switch to their implementation of POS is years away.  So I'm not really worried...

Ethereum: Centralizing Decentralized Applications

Would a popular decentralized application like Bittorrent work better on ethereum?  You'd have to pay a tax ("fuel") for every download... would every download be recorded on the ethereum blockchain? If the ethereum blockchain were experiencing some problems (such as scalability or a ddos attack), would that prevent programs running on ethereum from functioning?

Cryptocurrency became popular because of decentralization. Why do we need to centralized it?

This might be a bad move for ETH. Let's see how the market reacts with this kind of news.

Add those to the reasons I already explained as to why Ethereum can't scale with shards and thus can't scale without centralization:







Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:

If they indeed partnered with Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprise if they go centralized like how nxt end. The devs aren't in control anymore of where its heading so its likely going to be centralized knowing how Microsoft works.

They're working towards a PoS mined coin. This required ETH to mine so only those with ETH can mine. You could call that centralization. ETH will be fairly decentralized. Of course there will be a new coin that comes out and gets better decentralization but ETH will be pretty good.

There will be 1000s of coins that reach a billion $ marketcap with tons of users. This is where the true decentralization comes in, when there are 1000s of different coins distributed through the world.

Like Bitshares, Nxt, and Bitcoin which are all centralized. The Chinese mining cartel 51% attacked any block size increase. Nxt is run by a dictator. And Bitshares is run by a father & son.

The same can be said about Christianity too but the users are happy.

Will they add checkpoints? That'll give you a very definite answer. If they don't it could be the first high value target worth of a PoS history attack.

The litmus test for decentralization of a cryptocurrency is the government "asking" to add transaction filtering policies to the protocol. Then we shall see who is true, and who's been swimming naked.

I think we will see centralization effects much earlier in terms of monopolization of profits. Well we already have with the Chinese mining cartel preventing even an increase to 2MB blocks, ostensibly so they can increase transaction fees. We have already seen it over at Bitshares with the bidding out a Cryptonote clone implementation financed by a private investor who can then set and earn transaction fees for the (optional) anonymity feature.

What this all seems to indicate is that there is no such thing as decentralization and commerce is always a winner-take-all paradigm of the natural power-law distribution of wealth (http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/PhysicaA-299-213-2001.pdf) and the Iron Law of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984).

Fuck our idealism right? As long as we can earn a buck while Rome burns, that is just natural?

Personally I am not a believer that we can't change the fundamental forces of nature.

Look around and notice the phenomena in nature which remain decentralized, such as reproduction. Why? Because such phenomenon only require local partial orders. Global consensus is a global partial order (meaning an arbitrary choice of a combinatorial expansion of potential global orderings).

However we have one model of global agreement which has a stable equilibrium in terms of game theory strategies. That is the Nash equilibrium (http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/3999.full), which basically says that the optimum strategy is known and thus we can then compute from that stable strategy the economics and relevant outcomes of the system. With Bitcoin, the Nash equilibrium doesn't fail due to selfish-mining because none of the miners have more optimum strategy to pursue than normal mining for those with < 25% of the hashrate and selfish-mining for those with > 25% of the hashrate. So the Nash equilibrium doesn't prevent devolution into centralization, rather it only guarantees that the optimum strategy is known.

In terms of avoiding centralization of global consensus it is really about destroying economies-of-scale. We have an example for this on the internet. It is the End-to-End Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle), which basically says that the network where the economies-of-scale are applied should be fungible and substitutable and thus all the smarts and control lies at the ends of the network. Thus the ends can be diverse and leverage economies-of-scale without being captured by the economies-of-scale.[1]

That is my design to fix crypto currency. Someone has named it "savoircoin".

Note Iota is an attempt at a similar goal, but the Nash equilibrium doesn't exist for the ends (or at least it hasn't been proven that their optimal strategy is known) and thus I allege it devolves to non-consensus without centralization.

[1]

Cryptonote and Z(ero)cash are end-to-end principle anonymity systems, because the anonymous constructions are created by the ends autonomously without involving a network of masternodes. This is why Dash and Vcash's Chainblender suck. Note however that none of these coins have made mining and validation stable end-to-end principled.

Even immortal Gods can lead to Spanish Inquisitions.

The same can be said of the earlier stages of totalitarianism, such as when Hitler printed money out-of-thin-air to finance socialistic work programs (e.g. built the Autobahn) after the rekted Weimar Socialistic Republic failed, but then he couldn't print oil for free so he has to go take resources.

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C463KG/nazi-germany-public-works-1933-1945-C463KG.jpghttp://oi64.tinypic.com/2w7o508.jpg

:) Unlike bitshares, Christianity have a third shareholder (however this three are usually considered as one) a well known CEO, vast corporate infrastructure and lots of local sales and support offices. Also it's old and established and thought to be too big to fail. Most importantly it  promising rewards only in an afterlife instead of right here and right now, so it's a lot more difficult to testify :). Of course users are happy.

TL DR

What CfB and TPTB_need_war wants to tell you is this...

Everything sucks except our own creations!   ;D ;D ;D

Everyone should buy CfBCoins and TPTB_need_warCoins! Everything else is crap! really!

You oversimplify.

You can buy the Ethereum during the PoS stage and mine it yourself. Then it will not be centralisation any more. It is that simple.

That made my day. Thanks ;)

So you can't disprove the facts I claim. So you admit I am correct.


After making incorrect assumptions about the facts of the other coins, now you want to make assumptions about my motives. Don't you think you've done enough ASS-U-MING. How about learning to study facts.

My motivation is to shame you into studying technology if you want to invest in technology. If you just want to steal from greater fools, then we will understand that your post is just more P&D obfuscation tactics.

Btw, when I talk about my own designs, I am careful to point out potential flaws and caveats. Also you will find that any white papers from me will attempt to have a section that explains positives and negatives to laymen (minimizing/explaining the technobabble). Hypesters don't.

What I've never seen yet is a section in any paper pointing to the known risks and ways to get around this....

We return to the BTC

Your motives....yes, please tell us about your motives! Perhaps if we were in a position to really know your motives(or anyones else) we wouldn't be so suspicious.

Until then.. "Everything sucks.... but I have the solution!"  Yeah! You and 600+ altcoins!

"partnered with Microsoft"

http://i68.tinypic.com/2i6laqc.jpg

Are you blind.

Somewhat this topic has something to do with the falling ETH price. 

I don't get the motives argument. If the person is correct, then they are correct. A pumper's motives will no more prove a technology is first rate than a critic's motives will prove that a technology is second rate. Look at the facts of the argumentation, see if holds water, and move on. I'd be more scared if it was just praise for a technology and no one had the motivation to test and see if the tech is as good as advertised.

My motive is to have rational technological analysis. People don't like the truth. The fact that most all (but not all) of the altcoins are flawed is just fact.

No. Also, ETH price is not falling, it's normal behavior for cryptoindustry, up-down-up-down.

Bullshit! (With capital "B") That's what people don't like!

Why don't you work with some of all those "flawed" coins so that you can improve them?

But no, this is your motive.
"Everything sucks.... but I have the solution!"   <== Same old story

Thats what you are emitting, intentionally or not.

The proof is in the pudding.

XEM - New Economic movement

Eth - One World Order

The choice is yours. You choose

Not one single technological rebuttal to my recent technological points about Ethereum by anyone on these forums. Zilch. Zero.

If you call that bullshit, then you have screws loose in your head. You can't seem to discern technological discussion from opinion. That is because you don't understand the technology. Get off my lawn.

What you don't like is truth.

You are now on Ignore technologically illiterate pumper. You are wasting my time with nonsense replies.

Glad we agree.