Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
The slide from the Nakamoto Institute : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPY-5SR-jPQ#t=1063Of course they use Satoshi's name without permission to try to gain attention for themselves and they claim to know Satoshi's intentions based on cult-like reasoning and wild speculation. They call themselves an "institute" and give themselves titles like "director of research" yet they have no peer review whatsoever outside their small group of nut jobs and they sit around calling everyone else stupid like a bunch of unemployed teenagers who sit around making fun of people going to work.. You can never stop government corruption or change the fundamental nature of human society by running a blockchain . You can maybe affect certain things and disrupt some business models but it is not reasonable to expect more than that. Here is an example of how most people see the Bitcoin "wing nuts" (Note that this guy is starting a business based on cryptocurrencies and not some anti-Bitcoin person) https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html |
|
|
|
This has a lot to do with Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is a democratic paradigm. Or aren't 51% attacks an issue in "your reality"?  Bitcoin is a software program and protocol that is a partial solution to a computer science problem called the Byzantine general's problem. While Bitcoin can be used as a tool for various activities it is not in itself inherently political in nature. Also, I would point out I say "partial solution" because the mining activity creates the "facts" and those "facts" can be changed with anyone with 51% of the mining power. As far as that wacko meme about "democracy is a 51% attack" (that Eric Vorhees puts in his signature) it makes no sense. Voting is about achieving a consensus. In Bitcoin people "vote" by installing software with consensus rules on their computer. Comparing those two mechanisms I don't see where one is inherently better than the other. In some cases one system may work better but it is really a complicated discussion about which one will work better in specific circumstances. This is the kind of nonsense that makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous. You have a rather complicated question about achieving a consensus, something the human race has grappled with for thousands of years. Then along comes some teenagers and underemployed gamers who claim that using Bitcoin will solve everything. They think they have proved it by creating some simplistic slogan or meme. Then they ("they" being people who have generally not accomplished anything) sit around telling everyone they are stupid because they don't agree with some childish proclamation. Those people over at that Nakamoto "Institute" are some of the worst offenders in this regard. So yes, I have heard a bunch of teenagers with no credentials and mental cases like Ver who claim I don't understand what Bitcoin is, that I don't understand reality, that I am a "statist" and on and on. Of course I see the potential in Bitcoin technology and I invest in it and set up web sites about it and do public events where I describe it to people. While people discuss using Bitcoin to circumvent banks and such nobody ever asks about collapsing governments, ending war, or replacing the dollar unless it is question about the mental stability of the people making those claims. If you take the class I think it is highly unlikely the Princeton professor will be making those claims. That is the reality and if you get off your Internet discussion boards and join the real world you will see that. |
|
|
|
The other day I was thinking bitcoin itself is decentralized, but everything around it is centralized or striving towards being centralized. Let's just take a look at this forum for example. Here are certain people in such power that if they decide, they can destroy you - your forum nickname. Members with trust can give you negative trust for no reason and you have no way to fight against that. Admins can ban you with no reason. Isn't that the principle of "centralization" - a few people having power to do anything and with no justified reasons?
But on the other hand if you want to get something done you have to achieve a consensus of all the participants. That is slow and expensive and the world would essentially come to a halt if everything were done that way. Everybody involved should try mining and see how difficult and expensive it is and if you use Bitcoin for any length of time you run up against confirmation issues. It taking too long to be viable in certain use cases and people substitute centralized services (Bitpay, coinbase, etc.) to compensate for that. Consent may be slow, but it's absolutely necessary. From a semi-technical point: Maybe it takes longer to reach a consent, but consent is the most important component in a free and peaceful society. If power got centralized a hierarchy is created. The main problem here is our holy-grail-decision-principle : Democracy! Democracy is like a permanent 51% attack that is accepted as legit! Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions. If we want freedom and sustainability, we need to do things in a sociocratic way. That says that the the vote of the majority has the equal value to the minority's vote. What does that mean? The people find something, a foundation, a consent, that brings them together. Everything above that consent has to be done on their own. For example: 20 people buy a farm and want to produce their food by themselves. Ironically there are 11 people that eat meat, 9 do not. What might happen in a democratically oriented system? Everyone pays for meat production because the majority decides to do so. In a sociocratic system they have a common foundation, the farm and the support of the community. So the decision would look like following (maybe): You find synergies in both projects and meat eaters support meat production, vegetarians finance vegetable production. Where both projects can work together, they do. Like use the same house to produce their products...asf. So,when you talk about decentralization,don't forget that democracy is not compatible with that. Democracy does one thing for sure: It produces hatred, strife and violence. It's just a matter of time. That is so far outside of reality it is not worth discussing and it really has nothing to do with Bitcoin. Linking these discussions and cults to Bitcoin just makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous which is why I suggest taking the class. |
|
|
|
yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized
Comments like these show you many are completely clueless about what decentralization is and how it works. These people should be enrolled in that Princeton class instead of posting nonsense on discussion boards. Most are delusional anarcho capitalists like Jeff Berwick. If someone calls themselves an "anarcho capitalist" you know right away they are not credible. If you had anarchy it would not be possible to be a capitalist because they would not be able to protect the property that is amassed (except by force). In any case it is a waste of time to argue with those people as they will just go on forever and constantly point to some kind of reference that "proves" they are right. They fall into categories: Young people who don't know any better, scammers or tax cheats, and mentally ill. They make it difficult to promote Bitcoin but as it becomes popular those types will be pushed to the side. Places like Jerry Brito and Coin Center and the involvement of Universities like Princeton will change the face of Bitcoin over time. You may notice this forum has gone way down in importance mostly because of the nut jobs who run the site. |
|
|
|
The other day I was thinking bitcoin itself is decentralized, but everything around it is centralized or striving towards being centralized. Let's just take a look at this forum for example. Here are certain people in such power that if they decide, they can destroy you - your forum nickname. Members with trust can give you negative trust for no reason and you have no way to fight against that. Admins can ban you with no reason. Isn't that the principle of "centralization" - a few people having power to do anything and with no justified reasons?
But on the other hand if you want to get something done you have to achieve a consensus of all the participants. That is slow and expensive and the world would essentially come to a halt if everything were done that way. Everybody involved should try mining and see how difficult and expensive it is and if you use Bitcoin for any length of time you run up against confirmation issues. It taking too long to be viable in certain use cases and people substitute centralized services (Bitpay, coinbase, etc.) to compensate for that. |
|
|
|
yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized
Comments like these show you many are completely clueless about what decentralization is and how it works. These people should be enrolled in that Princeton class instead of posting nonsense on discussion boards. |
|
|
|
I just read an interesting quote from satoshi that dannyhamilton posted in another thread concerning the number of nodes.
Basically satoshi really didn't intend bitcoin to be completely decentralized.
He expected huge server farms to be left to run the nodes. While everyone else runs a light wallet and synchs with
one of possibly a hundred server farm nodes.
I think a digital currency needs to be decentralized more myself or it's just playing into the hands of a one world government.
Where all citizens have a ipv6 address and everything is connected to their address like americas SS #
Your wallet will be generated against your IPv6 addy and all transactions will be credited/debited through this.
sounds kind of sci-fi tin hat huh?
It does not matter. What matters is the consensus moving forward. Bitcoin is about decentralization and not depending on one person or thing. Some people treat Bitcoin like some kind of religion and Satoshi as some kind of "prophet." Clearly, Satoshi did not view himself that way and he didn't want all this drama and nonsense surrounding one individual. |
|
|
|
We should decentralise everything we can in my opinion.
First sensible thing I've read in this forum all day So you are going to have a mining systems for everything? Are you going to mine at a loss to keep it going? Do you mine now at home? If not I have some miners in the attic that will cost you 2 or 3 times as much to run as you will get back in Bitcoin. Will you run them and spend hundreds per month on electricity for no direct benefit to you? Idk, I guess in some places is not profitable to mine but where electricity is cheap or free it is profittable. Exchanges should be decentralised to we avoid "hacks" when exchange declare that someone hacked them and vanish with ppls coins. Also decentralisation of everything we can prevent service to be scam and that is also one of main Bitcoin problems. Decentralisation is not equal to mining, it does require some sort of investment, it will cost you your computerpower and some electricity, but how bad is it to invest in something that will decentralise a part of your wellbeing? How bad is it to contribute to a free-er world without getting financial benefit? Like I said above I suggest enrolling in the Princeton class about Bitcoin because the comments here show that most people posting here don't understand what decentralization is and how it is achieved. Decentralization does not atomically prevent scams and it almost never the most efficient way of doing things. In some cases it might be worth it but those cases are in the minority. Some people here talk about Reddit being "decentralized" because there are upvotes, etc. If that worked we could just post the blockchain on there and do away with all the mining expenses. I never said anything was good or bad, I just pointed out that people won't expend resources without a direct benefit to them. Saying "other people" should do it then you are back to the centralized system you want to avoid. |
|
|
|
We should decentralise everything we can in my opinion.
First sensible thing I've read in this forum all day So you are going to have a mining systems for everything? Are you going to mine at a loss to keep it going? Do you mine now at home? If not I have some miners in the attic that will cost you 2 or 3 times as much to run as you will get back in Bitcoin. Will you run them and spend hundreds per month on electricity for no direct benefit to you? |
|
|
|
Decentralization is expensive, slow and difficult to do and is not needed or warranted for most things. If you want to understand Bitcoin you have to learn to ignore the "wing nuts" and focus on the technology. Many people make exaggerated claims because they are using Bitcoin to promote a political agenda or they are cultists. I would suggest enrolling in the Princeton U class at https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/home rather than listening to random people who misrepresent or exaggerate things. |
|
|
|
The Princeton University Bitcoin class has started. https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/homeThis is an online version/offshoot of the class they taught last semester: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/nine-awesome-bitcoin-projects-at-princeton/I am enrolled and I went through chapter 1 and lecture 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOMVZXLjKYoI would highly recommend this class based on what I have seen so far. Even if you don't understand the fine points of the math or can't do the programming assignments I would try to take the class anyway. Education is the most important thing in the Bitcoin space right now. the space is being overtaken by groups of cultists and nut jobs both for and against Bitcoin. On one side you have Roger Ver, Erik Voorhees, Stephanie Murphy, Cody Wilson, Theymos, Charlie Shrem, etc. and on the other side you have Neil Palmquist, Buttcoiners, etc. Those Al Sharpon wannabee agenda-pushers are completely distorting things. It is like listening to Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore debate global warming. You may notice when something like the Princeton class shows up these people are nowhere to be found. As Bitcoin progresses knowledge will be pushing the "wing nuts" back into the woodwork so don't be left behind. Things like this class and people like Jerry Brito at Coin Center are what is going to drive mass adoption, not the foaming-at-the-mouth cultists who promote an agenda that has zero chance of acceptance by most people. |
|
|
|
|
You don't want to confuse "regulation of Bitcoin" with regulation when Bitcoin interacts with the banking system. There is little or no regulation of Bitcoin itself except for tax consequences which applies to receiving any kind of property. There is regulation when Bitcoin interacts with the "legacy" financial system like exchanges.
|
|
|
|
You are comparing apples to oranges. People are not going to run large scale mining needed to secure today's network at a loss. You can't compare that to a few people running CPU's or GPU's. Mining profitability is a major issue for Bitcoin survival.
I totally agree that no one is expected to act unless there is a profit motive. But that is how it scales. When prices are high it is worth the investment in equipment. When they crash hard and mining is not profitable, some mines will close. Because of open competition we should always be at about the lowest profitable transaction fee. That may not be enough for a large scale mine, but it will be enough for someone. The question is whether it will be enough to secure the whole network to a sufficient level that people will use it. Very difficult to predict how this will scale. |
|
|
|
We keep forgetting that bitcoin does not need money to live, you do, but not bitcoin. This is also a difference between bitcoin and a traditional financial instrument like a stock or bond. Those things do need money or they will crash and leave the issuer insolvent. At that point a stock could be worthless. Not so with BTC. As long as two people on Earth are using it the system will work fine. I'm one... Anyone want to second that?
Bitcoin needs a constant money supply to support the operation of mining computers. True. But it worked fine when bitcoins were $0.06. It may not support the big mines with fancy ASICs, but bitcoin does not care about them either. It's kinda like gold. Most of the time gold mining is not profitable and most mines close. When the price goes up they open the mines again. You are comparing apples to oranges. People are not going to run large scale mining needed to secure today's network at a loss. You can't compare that to a few people running CPU's or GPU's. Mining profitability is a major issue for Bitcoin survival. |
|
|
|
We keep forgetting that bitcoin does not need money to live, you do, but not bitcoin. This is also a difference between bitcoin and a traditional financial instrument like a stock or bond. Those things do need money or they will crash and leave the issuer insolvent. At that point a stock could be worthless. Not so with BTC. As long as two people on Earth are using it the system will work fine. I'm one... Anyone want to second that?
Bitcoin needs a constant money supply to support the operation of mining computers. |
|
|
|
The point in all the above^^ stuff is clear. Governments are needed to protect us all from, say, terrorists (each other?). But once they get into control, governments wind up becoming the terrorists that they were expected to protect their citizens from. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.htmlhttps://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTMYou can find evidence that Stalin might have caused the deaths of as many as 60 to 100 million people in Eastern and Northern Europe (including parts of Asia). There are some statistics that suggest democide (death of citizens by their own government) in 1900 exceeded 200,000,000 deaths. Apparently you are implying governments should be eliminated, that it will solve this problem, and that no other problems will result from your solution. That is where the logic of these things falls apart. |
|
|
|
Actually, whichever side is dominant, change be a-comin'. Best be ready to adapt. The libertarian hordes are working toward a freer world. What can you do to stop us? Anything but complain?
The reality is that people have been seeing less freedoms and people are moving away from libertarian ideals with the help of technology. I think that is bad and I like the position of Bitcoin advocate Preston Byrne and people like him since he deals in reality. In any case, back to developing my Bitcoin web sites while I try to keep track of some legal issues on the side: http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-bitcoin-miners-need-not-register-money-transmitters/I am also trying to stop this guy from registering a trademark on "Bitcoin" because he wants to corner the market on items with Bitcoin logos: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91219797&pty=OPP&eno=2 |
|
|
|
Here is how Help.org thinks we look like:  Actually I always think of that Dead Milkmen song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyaK3jo4Sl4We went to the Philly Pizza Company
And ordered some hot tea
The waitress said "Well no
We only have it iced"
So we jumped up on the table
And shouted "anarchy" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
