Bitcoin Forum

When facing a potential adversary with trillions of defense $ at its disposal (and nuclear weapons). You have two options:

1. Security through Ubiquity   (So widely used in the world economy as to be important for its continued function.)

2. Security through Obscurity   (Small enough that state actors won't bother with it.)

The network is secured by warehouses full of gear burning MW's of electricity, their locations are known. Nodes publicly broadcast their IPs. PoW protects us from certain attackers, but not from state level actors.

We're going to stick with 1MB blocks and keep on rollin' with option 2.

Nakamoto's ideals were actually option 1, but we can thank Gregory Maxwell for demonstrating Satoshi was wrong and changing course back to 2.

When facing a potential adversary with trillions of defense $ at its disposal (and nuclear weapons). You have two options:

1. Security through Ubiquity   (So widely used in the world economy as to be important for its continued function.)

2. Security through Obscurity   (Small enough that state actors won't bother with it.)

The network is secured by warehouses full of gear burning MW's of electricity, their locations are known. Nodes publicly broadcast their IPs. PoW protects us from certain attackers, but not from state level actors.

We're going to stick with 1MB blocks and keep on rollin' with option 2.

Nakamoto's ideals were actually option 1, but we can thank Gregory Maxwell for demonstrating Satoshi was wrong and changing course back to 2.

I think the OP was reading my posts in another thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1502768.msg15136683#msg15136683

Also TPTB_need_war's posts in the  "Bitcoin IS destroyed" thread.

I certainly wasn't inspired by either of those, those threads are rancid.

So im sitting here and I'm listening to all of these Bitcoin advocates, a few being Roger Ver, Erik Voorhees, etc etc and they are preaching about the inevitability of bitcoin becoming "the" global currency in the face of widespread collapse of the banking system (paraphrasing).

I will call it "Geographic Centralization". My only issue with geographic centralization is that a bitcoin revolution could easily be shut down by a governing body, and if that does occur the network would be crippled after losing 70% of the hash rate.

I dont believe it happens in our lives, but complete collapse of the banking system probably mean collapse of centralized forms of governments as well. Afterall, one of the function of current governments is issue currency and keep monopoly on this. Because fiat currency is not backed by gold but just government protection, it makes sence Bitcoin can become  "the" global currency replacing all fiat currencies only after current forms of governments are transformed to ones with less power thus no control over curency anymore (so your argument "shut down by a governing body" might not apply as well if future governments dont have much actual power at all).

In what way are they 'rancid'?

And how would you refute the post I've made in this thread?

How long have you been studying Bitcoin, because I don't think you realize who I am and how much I know. Here are just few examples to raise your awareness of my technical superiority:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504601.msg15143765#msg15143765

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504381.msg15138357#msg15138357

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg15111595#msg15111595


Do you claim you are any where near as qualified as I am  ???

I dont believe it happens in our lives, but complete collapse of the banking system and Bitcoin replacement probably mean collapse of centralized forms of governments as well. Afterall, one of the function of current governments is issue currency and keep monopoly on this. Because fiat currency is not backed by gold but just government protection, it makes sence Bitcoin can become  "the" global currency replacing all fiat currencies only after current forms of governments are transformed to ones with less power thus no control over currency anymore (so your argument "shut down by a governing body" might not apply as well if future governments dont have much actual power at all).

But umm 70 MIllion dollars from "the powers-that-be" isn't that much actually. Certainly isn't enough to monopolize bitcoin.

A collapse of the fiat banking system would definitely be a blow to the governments, but if they were to play it out correctly there would be less total collapse and more authoritarian government until something was fixed. The wouldn't let their power and countries collapse, so a lot of countries would get aggressive against their own people and make sure there was next to no dissent, or at least not on the surface.

It would be a blow to the confidence of the people though, and would likely make a lot of them question the legitimacy of fiat dollars.

It is when Blockstream are the Bitcoin core devs. And have cooperated with the Chinese mining cartel to block adoption of Bitcoin XT and Classic.

Don't be offended by lack of modesty when you are the presence of someone who is expert. Learn to appreciate that they share their scarce time for you.

I don't have to time to beat around the bush.

well thanks for your time now that you've said your 2 satoshi, let another "Expert" state their piece pls and thx :)

You ego is much less important than the subject matter here, which is very serious and impacts the enslavement of all of mankind by Bitcoin.

What is your age? I am 51. You sound like you are young Gen Y or Millennial. They are often emotional basketcases, always concerned about ego and not about the seriousness of the issues we face.

It is about you failing to respond to any of my technical points and wanting to just ignore the reality.

You don't want to have substantive debate with an expert.

Seems you are offended by something.

No i don't want to have a debate, i had a question.

"My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios?"

THis was your only "decent" response to my question

"There is only one possible way you defeat those bastards. And that is to make something so popular, that can't be centralized. Once it is very popular, they will have a difficult time taking it away from the people."

which as I have already discussed is illogical. The more popular BTC becomes the more centralized it will become. Why would "The People" host a node if all it does is cost them money? The People wont save BTC from centralization. If they could have they would have already and we wouldn't be looking at this geographic collection of power in China. So yea you offended me by ignoring logic and posting B.S in this thread...

It is about you failing to respond to any of my technical points and wanting to just ignore the reality.

You don't want to have substantive debate with an expert.

Seems you are offended by something. I asked you what is 'rancid' in the other thread I linked to which had expressed some of the same logic as your OP, and you said the threads smell like fish. That isn't a very substantive response. You are all fluff. How about focusing in on the issues instead. I raised many issues and you seem to not be interested even though they are directly related to your OP.

Any way, I don't care. Enjoy what ever you are doing with this thread.

The reason I mentioned ego is in response to your statement, " With such "Technical superiority" your modesty is astounding.". I asked you to be aware of my knowledge set and not brush off my comments nonchalantly. You got offended by my lack of modesty.

It seems you don't comprehend the seriousness of the situation facing the world right now. When you are stuck in a 666 enslavement system some years from now, it will be too late to get your freedom back.

I have been working night and day for many years to prevent that from happening. You made an OP that seemed to recognize that Bitcoin is in dilemma. I am making you aware that it was designed to be in that dilemma. Because it is designed to enslave the world.

I have studied the consensus design and even explained that Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem. I have studied the SegWit and other changes being made to Bitcoin. There is a pattern to all of this.

Your technical expertise are appreciated elsewhere this was a logical discussion about Bitcoin and only Bitcoin's future. Not the future of the whole world.

Bitcoin can't be fixed. The issue that your OP explains in insoluble. You can only hope to replace it. Bitcoin will be scaled up centralized. And it will enslave the world. Period. That is the answer.

"I offered another option, but you don't want to discuss it. So end of thread."

The centralized Bitcoin won't be 51% attacked bcz those controlling it will have the 666 control system they designed Bitcoin to accomplish. In the transitionary phase now, the Chinese miners will be handed lots of wealth as the process of centralizing mining proceeds. We can't say every Chinese miner today knows he is part of the ultimate plan. We can't even say the Blockstream devs know they are part of some diabolical plan. They are just trying to fix a design that can't be fixed without restarting from scratch. Compartmentalization is the modus operandi of the DEEP STATE. This is a process. The DEEP STATE that designed Bitcoin has a plan over years.

Our other hope is the system blows up technically. But that is why Blockstream is receiving so much funding, because they probably have the expertise to centralize Bitcoin sufficiently whil still being able to give some illusion of decentralization for sufficient time that Bitcoin maximalists fall into the trap, of which SegWit is a major step in that direction.

Unlike Armstrong, I don't believe the masses can ever be saved. Never has that been the case, e.g. in the French Revolution they accomplished in the end totalitarianism under Napoleon. Nature purges the masses such as with the Black Death that killed a majority of Europe's population. I believe the powers-that-be will win control over the mainstream monetary system and they and the masses will decline together in a morass. I hold my hope in the bifurcation of the economy into a dying Industrial Age (which the powers-that-be and masses control) and a fledgling Knowledge Age which is controlled by the hackers and knowledge creators.

I understand Moldbug's "Only One Currency Can Win" which Satoshi also apparently validated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888883.msg9803201#msg9803201).

And I have explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888883.msg9803315#msg9803315) how I think a bifurcated economy could violate Gresham's Law (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888883.msg9803412#msg9803412) and allow for two monetary units to coexist globally analogous to how national currencies coexist due to a Coasian barrier of individuals not trading directly internationally.

The one unit will be controlled by the banksters and the masses and this will be the 666 slavery system. The other crypto-currency unit will be for those who hold their "unit-of-account" in "units-of-knowledge". You see as a hacker, you don't care about money as a store-of-value, power-law distribution enslavement paradigm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.msg9851954#msg9851954). We care about code and the freedom (power) to build (software, 3D printing designs, etc). The models of remuneration (http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/) employed thus far for "open source" have depended mostly on large corporate funding. This has locked us hackers into the Theory of the Firm rigor mortis paradigm but remember knowledge can't be enslaved nor financed monetarily (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html). Whereas what we really need is direct remuneration via micro payments.

Note the banksters need this alternative monetary unit too. For they need a place to hide their wealth from their own morass, and because if they squelch all knowledge formation, they will destroy their cancer's host and perish. Precious metals are no longer even functional (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg9851607#msg9851607) in the competition against knowledge.

Do understand that everyone who is creative and likes to build things is a hacker (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2581).

I believe I know what needs to be done in terms of an altcoin. But getting it done may be more than one man could do timely.

So with that being said. I present two scenarios

A:IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes" thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system.

B: If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil?


I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away :)

*Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe.

A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.

Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?

A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.

B) Nakamoto is not the ruler of bitcoin to adhere to his ideas, bitcoin will go where the community wants it. However there will be many principles that will be strongly enforced (21million btc, blocksize, conf time, network structure ,etc) anything else will probably change in 15 years.

But it always boils down to being trendy.

The mindless masses dont care about principles, they only care about trendy stuff.

Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?

Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.

Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg15145893#msg15145893). And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg14623700#msg14623700) that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49a14r/how_the_heck_are_actual_bitcoin_users_who_want_a/d0taiqa?context=3) in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi), that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.