Bitcoin Forum

As Bitcoin grows it will require resources beyond the average user to act as a full node. Actually, it did that when it was invented. The average person in the world doesn't even have a computer, let alone a personal internet connection. This leads to the question of who really benefits from Bitcoin? We all do, rich or poor. The greatest objection so far seems to be that as Bitcoin grows it will lead to supernodes and lose its quality of decentralization. These supernodes will act as transaction clearinghouses in the way that banks do now. Now we all now how unfair banks operate, so this must mean that Bitcoin will become as corrupted as the central banks, right? This argument is related to the notion that a 51% attack will threaten the integrity of transactions. Both are real concerns and both have the same solutions, transparency and competition.

I welcome the days when banks again operate under a code of ethics, even if it means they are subject to the same competition in the market all working people experience. Banks will need to compete for bitcoin loans based not only on their lending practices, but also their choices of payment processing rates. Supernodes and banks will compete for exchange rates in diversified investments. The fear that someday one supernode will monopolize the Bitcoin network is as real as gold or any other commodity will be cornered. It is an irrational assumption as all markets operate in complex systems with ever scaling margins of error.

I am less concerned about making Bitcoin more scalable than functional through the theoretical transaction types available because of the crypto baked into the cake. Let's stop worrying about who is going to build the biggest mining rigs. There will always be competition like that. Let's instead focus on making the great big board-game of global commerce fun for everyone.

+1

Proof of stake is what we currently have under our fiat USD/EUR/Whatever system, where the banks and the central bank have the biggest stake in the currency. It hasn't kept them honest, since it's trivial to hurt the currency while acquiring more and more assets, and still come out on top.

That's exactly right. Enough of this proof of stake bullshit already.

Really! You would have said the same thing? You have to be careful agreeing with me around here. The OP was not a slam against PoS and I'm glad you got that. Competition is the core of capitalism and Bitcoin embraces that notion fearlessly.

Hahahah, I'll be careful when I'm dead. I'm a banking person, so I catch flak all the time for defending the notion that banks used to be, and may yet return to being ethical and useful practices within society. We all fall off the wagon at one time or another.

I think Bitcoin is a huge opportunity for everyone, including banks, because as you said, it embraces the notion of competition fearlessly. It worked once, and it will work again. Banks provide necessary services to the community involving risks that need to be taken when nobody else will take them. They will operate ethically again, and Bitcoin is a major opportunity for them to do just that. They have no reason to fight Bitcoin, and every reason in the world to support it and get in as early as possible. Note that I'm not including central banks in this discussion, because I don't view them as actual banks to begin with.

I'm not saying PoS is unworthy of experiment. By all means, waste all the time and resources you want developing it. I won't waste any more time arguing about the points I disagree with. I'll wait until I can buy some at Walmart like I do Bitcoin to discuss the merits of PoS.