That wasn't the the central point. The central point was that encryption is appropriately applied to either personal records or contractually defined money where ownership is both nominated and distinct from possession. If, on the other hand, you encrypt an un-nominated bearer token, the encryption is redundant. All you're doing is obfuscating critical blockchain properties and adding a new layer riddled with toxic exploits. In Bitcoin, transactions can only be de-anonymised off-chain. In Monero, they can still be de-anonymised off-chain despite its encryption.


Agreed. That's why its blockchain balances are transparent.

If something doesn't square in one place, it won't square somewhere else and a global awareness of the blockchain state can quickly come to a consensus over what's happening. When you've got a thick layer of obfuscating nonsense stuck between the blockchain and its users (keyholders or non-keyholders) all you have is confusion and - ultimately - nothing.

Because public transparency is what supports their value, not time-bombed clumsy layers of obfuscation.

I don't think I've stated or implied that ever.

I've always said that Bitcoin is an unbacked asset and that that's its value basis - same as precious metals, diamonds, whatever.

The point about backed vs unbacked is that in a so called bearer token or "bearer instrument" there is not a distinct definition of ownership and possession. Assets which are "backed" therefore specifically trade ownership and are consequently subject to privacy/security priorities where obfuscation is appropriate since they only manifest in a record-keeping context.

The "IOU" tokens you trade on an exchange are such backed (contractual money). The blockchain tokens are not.

(Anyway. Now is not exactly the best time in history to be entrusting one's life's savings to a layer of encryption ).

https://twitter.com/hashtag/vault7

Isn't this to do with antpool mining a BU block ?

I wish people would ditch this term "pseudo anonymity". It's totally meaningless.

Something is either named or it isn't. The fact that you can have off-chain anecdotal information about the parties to a particular trade doesn't make the money that was used for that trade any less "anonymous".

There are types of monterary media - e.g. debt based money - which derive their very existence from a contractual basis. For example, if you sign a mortgage agreement the bank will monetise that agreement for you so that you can exchange it for a house. That type of contractual money is nominated and the associated encryption of its transactions has more to do with security than privacy. i.e. it's to make sure that the right person is able to perform transactions and not all and sundry. You don't have much privacy because the bank sees everything and members of the public staff the bank.

In cryptocurrencies, however, a system of public/private keys is used so security isn't an issue. Authenticity, however is because we no longer have a trusted third party to back the money - which is why blockchains are transparent but private keys are...."private".

Gold nuggets are anonymous (not named). Barrels of oil are anonymous. Lumps of coal are anonymous. But if we stand in a circle and pass a lump of coal around, the fact I saw who had it before me doesn't make the coal any less anonymous.

So there is no "pseudo-anonymity". There is simply off-chain anecdotal knowledge of certain transactions, which is part of life and a good thing. Something that applies to every collateralising, base monetary token whether physical or electronic. Encryption is not something that adds any value to such a token. It's a tunnel for hiding stuff, not a monetary property.

Look at the type of complete nightmare scenarios a contentious bitcoin hardfork can create.

This is why I think it will no longer ever happen.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-latest-coin-etf-amendment-could-hurt-its-investors-and-perhaps-harm-bitcoin-too/

...all 1 million of them !

Just waiting to to be cashed out in the original and biggest crypto-scam of all time. 7.125 Billion people on this planet and 1 solitary one of them holds a full fifteenth of the entire bitconi supply. Unfortunately my couple of "maddof-nodes" can't hold a candle to that. . (Nor can anybody's for that matter).

Get your hard hats on folks !  

Correction proceeding nicely ! Orders set.

1st shot of espresso getting packed down. Lots of new and excited investors asking intelligent questions like "Exactly what "vital services" do Masternodes provide?"

12-hour chart now starting to correct also so as lower ranges start to wash through & get baked in  

Don't worry. You're in good company.

Well it "really matters" and I only see one spectator and it isn't him

Although important, none of those are related to archetypal fidelity. They are technology factors.

You can't compromise authenticity for those because authenticity is something that's not replaceable once lost. Technology factors are.

I didn't say scarceity is what makes Bitcoin valuable, I said "authenticity" did.

Scarecity doesn't make anything valuable. Lots of things are scarce.

You can produce an altcoin tomorrow that's "scarce". It will go to zero if that's the only monetary property it has.

Increasingly, Bitcoin's value is based on its authenticity. That will only increase as time goes on.

By hardforking the blocksize you're diminishing the authenticity for the sake of convenience. Do the math:

Value gained by greater convenience: 5%
Value lost to diminished authenticity: 40%-95%

(My estimations obviously).

It isn't really a technology question. The market is already deciding what the priorities are and whatever the issues about backlogs, confirmation times etc, it's something that has to be lived with.

I don't think we have a choice. Altcoins are the appropriate way forward for augmenting on-chain functionality, features and alternative monetary models IMO.

Cos it's a bit like saying..."hey, this gold's a bit heavy. It's a PITA to carry around and I'm always having to buy new trousers cos the pockets get holes from my coins. Lets just hardfork it and mix it with some aluminium so it's more convenient."

Over time, if the market values something as a monetary asset rather than a tech-stock then the above analogy increasingly applies. Maybe if Bitcoin had raised the blocksize back in 2010 they might have got away with it but I'd say it's too late now.

Yes. I admit that.


Could you recap what you feel they are doing "irresponsibly" in this regard ? (Since they are not promoting the hardfork - what's the other component to the erosion of the gold archetype ? Trying to control transaction fees or something ?)

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".

The thing is, at this point, messing with the blocksize kind of changes Bitcoin's value proposition from a monetary stock to a technology stock. Why stop at blocksize ? Why not fiddle with all kinds of stuff that needs 'fixed' ?

I know the difference is subtle at the moment but it won't be in 10 or 20 years. If Bitcoin is seen as a tech-stock (or even a 'payment system') its value proposition changes from something that's not interchangeable to something that is. Also, from a simple security point of view, it puts a ceiling on its ability to store value because if it can be 'messed with' now then it can be hyper messed with at any time in the future. It sets a precedent that is toxic and will just eat away at confidence.

I think bitcion's options for on-chain scaling are gone and it now needs to be scaled off-chain.

(Apart from anything else, the community is now so irrevocably divided that it will fork like Ether did. You'll have 2 bitcoins, so it's a non-starter. All that has to happen is that one exchange hosts a market in the old fork).

Unfortunately, winning at spectator sports ≠ winning on the pitch 

Also see: https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/42nqoa/how_many_tps_can_dash_handle_right_now_is_there_a/?st=izu3y0z5&sh=e77e77ac

You mean they are trying to control the price by degrading its value ?

No. Because price inflation and inflation of the monetary base are two different things. They are not trying to mess with bitcoin's inflation profile, ergo they are not attempting "inflation control".

Bitcoin's useability will have an arbitrary effect on its value. Maybe in the long term it might be good for it to have slow confirmations because people feel it's more 'safe'. Only the market can decide.

Maybe Ver think's he's making it more valuable by making it more useable but that's only one factor in the overall value proposition.

I wouldn't call it "attempting inflation control".