Nice try at reductio ad absurdium. Too bad it suffers from deeply flawed reasoning.


If your criteria for a good financial system include the wealthy enriching themselves by stealing purchasing power from everyone, then yes, I think they have that covered. What leads you to beleive that I think this state of affairs to be A Good Thing?

If you are about to engage in argument starting by constructing a straw man, you might first wish to minimize its flammability.


Wait - are you trying to claim that Satoshi did not so specialize in the development of a new monetary protocol? Do you realize the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that every last one of us should be devising our own singular and unique monetary protocol?


As above, the goals of those specialists don't match mine. My goals align more closely with what Satoshi's goals seem to have been.


The lines for specialization of labor are in continual flux. Always have been. Well, at least from the time we first hit upon the value of such. And likely always will be.

How about those 3D printers? Are you about to tell me that every person will design each part they create out of first principles? Will everyone first design and build their own 3D printer?

Don't be ...     ....       ... ridiculous.

I had no idea that gold price had achieved Vegeta.

(graph suffers from poor legend on axis of dependent variable)

Correct. The actual coin/chain/protocol. The network that comes out of those concrete considerations is a function of many independent actors making many independent decisions. All based upon popularity. None of these networks has exclusionary barriers to any party playing any part in the network. And popularity is -- in my estimation at least -- an awfully weak place to plant your flag.


Statement made as fait accompli, yet utterly dependent upon facts not entered into evidence. When BTC becomes so expensive to transact upon that the vast majority of the world's population literally cannot transact upon it, who is going to run a fully-validating non-mining client? If a person cannot afford to move an amount of BTC from A to B, do you really think they are going to dedicate a Raspberry Pi to monitoring a chain they have no hope of employing?

OTOH, a chain that has capacity to handle the world's sum of financial transactions has a much (much) larger pool of interested parties from which to draw.


No. We cannot. There are offsetting factors, the above which is only one.

But should we wish to discuss concrete evidence, it is an indisputable fact that today, BTC validators must dedicate more storage capacity to the task than do BSV validators.
Yes, this is likely a temporary condition.

It honestly took me a minute to figure out what you were complaining about here. Do people really not understand quote indentation?

::sigh:: fine. I'll 'fix' the quote. In my original post. Though there be nothing wrong with it as it stands. The quote in question (I assume you are referring to "I asked you to back it up"...) is clearly attributed to DaRude, but whatevs...

Too bad it is all predicated upon a lie. If you believe that 'good rebuttals' contain complete falsehoods presented as truths...

Is your omission intentional? Or do you not understand? I said that from a technical viewpoint the BTC protocol and the BSV protocol are exactly as decentralized as each other.


No. You inaccurately state your entrance into this branch of the thread. Are you lying, or trying to put one over on us? Or can you simply not remember what your position was those scant few days ago?

You went straight to implying that I was redefining 'decentralization', TOTALLY Without any supporting rationale for your implication.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg54783389#msg54783389

Indeed, it was myself who first asked you for a definition of decentralization, so that I may try to discern what it was you had issue with in my statement.

You did not request that I provide a definition of decentralization until further downthread, after actively evading the question yourself.

See, this is the sort of false hyperbole that passes for 'common knowledge' that I have to deal with. Coinbase will do no such thing.

Coinbase will send you and the IRS a 1099-K accurately reflecting revenue from your trading activity upon their platform.

Then they will not hound you. They have fulfilled their duty by so sending, so they have no reason to take further steps.

Also: the 1099-K has nothing to do with crypto gains. 1099-K is strictly an indication of monetary inflows.

Such woud seem the fundamental dichotomy, yes.


Not today. Certainly, it is well within the purview of insubstantial computers with good internet connections to do so for BSV today. At some time in the future, yes. Hobbyists will end up dropping off.

But that is not A Bad Thing. I mean, it's a tradeoff. Sure, its... nice if everyone is trivially able to validate the chain. But at what price? Demonstrably, so-called second layer solutions were not ready in time to stave off Blockalypse I. Nearly four years later, they still are not ready to stave off a potential Blockalypse II. (Of course, with none of the second layer solutions of which I am aware transacting on chain, they are completely invisible to the so-called 'validators' anyhow, though that's a separate discussion.)

But perhaps more germane... Humanity muddled along for one or two dozen thousand years with no discernible increase in standard of living. It is only in the last few centuries when specialization of labor has allowed us to rise out of the muck of scarcity into a stratified realm of (relative) abundance. Do you insist on developing and building your own automobile?  How about a semiconductor chip? Do you think everyone should design their own computer? Build their own fab to crank out the chips? One only need refer to the seminal essay 'I, Pencil' to see the folly therein. Why would the maintenance of the financial system be the one thing that is the enforced domain of the lowest common denominator?

I say they should not. The system should grow to accommodate demand. Those that are good at validation will remain validators. That are not will fall by the wayside, and find other things to do. Things more matched to their unique set of gifts. There is nothing wrong -- and everything right -- with that.


B does not follow A. At least not without an explanation as to how A necessarily leads to B.

Yes, I argue


Maybe occasionally. Not with intent. OTOH, we have immediately above an accusation that you make that I am not answering your questions. When demonstrated that you have not even rendered any questions to me to go unanswered, you deflect the conversation - presumably in order to gloss over your demonstrably false statement.


I seem disingenuous? From time to time? Weak. I assure you, my arguments are sincere.


Of course one has to carefully parse what I write and post. These topics are nuanced. The points are sometimes subtle. The differences and dependencies thereupon require careful evaluation. (It doesn't help that people keep ascribing things to me which I have not said.) Are we too lazy to engage in meaningful dialogue?


I'm still waiting for someone to step up with the accepted definition of 'decentralization'. So far nobody in this cast of dozens has been able to do so. It's kind of hard to argue about the definition of decentralization when nobody is bold enough to step up to the plate with what they believe is an actual definition.

As a corollary, I think your characterization that I am arguing over the definition is false.


So then why can't anyone provide such? From the outside, it appears that the accepted dogma is that 'decentralization' is exactly equivalent to 'today brand X has lotsa lotsa non-mining fully-validating clients' - no more and no less. But it must not be that simple?


I hope that's not supposed to be a definition - because it ain't. It may be a characteristic of a decentralized financial system, but it sure ain't a definition of 'decentralization'.


Indeed, you are one of the few hereabouts that seem open to thinking.


I'm not sure style has anything to do with discussion of reality, but whatevs.

Actually, in most areas of life I can interact in a friendly manner with people with whom I disagree. Indeed, a great part of my professional life was developing standards for technology amongst representatives of competitors with $billions on the line. The difference in such a professional venue is that people who reach such committees can and do treat each other with respect regardless of how strongly they disagree with the presented ideas.

You'll note that there is a coterie here in this thread with whom I carry out cordial arguments, and others which I (somewhat regrettably) treat with verbal contempt. The latter class has self-selected themselves into that group by initial aggression.


Fair enough. I disagree. That's all.

Well, that's even stupider than most of the shit you sling. I have never ascribed god-ness to Ver nor Wright.

Pretty fuckin' cheap-ass way to try to score a popularity point, nutildah.

Well, it is quite evident that _you_ would.

Hmmm. So it would seem that your claim is that it is impossible for BTC to be the default monetary system for the world.

Allow me to disagree. I mean, it _could_, should it not be intentionally crippled. Accordingly, thank god for the big block chains.

What the hell are you on about? Looking back three pages, you have addressed exactly zero questions to me, let alone ones unanswered. Unless you're confusing yourself with some sock.

Because you are engaging in nothing but dodging, ya ninny.

That roughly is my thesis, yes. If the next wave of FOMO inrush gets forestalled because they can't take possession of actual BTC due to weeks-long tx times and can't afford it anyhow due to sky-high tx fees, what would anyone expect to happen?

If Blockalypse II comes and goes without a significant loss of BTC market dominance, I will reassess my thesis. I don't much anticipate the need to.


BCH seems to have made serious inroads in commerce - mostly in Asia. Unfortunately, BCH movers-n-shakers seem bent on self destruction of competing featureitis wars.


With more value locked up as wBTC on the Ethereum network than within LN, and with the gap widening by day, I don't believe any of us should look forward to that eventuality with glee.


If owning BTC is to be solely the domain of the rich, why are we endeavoring to limit its network's capacity limit to a $30 investment in HW?


Yup. Talk about an asymmetric bet fueled by knowledge asymmetry...

Nonsense. I've been consistent on the above point whenever consideration of such has entered the discussion.

Inability to articulate a cogent argument is duly noted.

Because....?

What 'tactics'? Expounding upon the truth as I see it?

Well, no. I think that placing your trust in the lowest common denominator is trust misplaced.

Further, I am not looking for a system 'governed by the technocratic elite', I am looking for a system with enough capacity to be money for the entire world. And 3-7 tx/s just ain't gonna cut it.