Well, that comment aged poorly.

grr

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.


That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

Noble task. You may want to speak with 600watt before you commit.

Interesting observation from Yuval Noah Harari, found within a treatise on society's long-standing relationship with Fake News:

"You might argue that, at least in some cases, it is possible to organise people effectively through consensual agreements rather than through fictions and myths. Thus in the economic sphere, money and corporations bind people together far more effectively than any god or holy book, even though everyone knows that they are just a human convention. In the case of a holy book, a true believer would say “I believe that the book is sacred” while, in the case of the dollar, a true believer would say only that “I believe that other people believe that the dollar is valuable”. It is obvious that the dollar is just a human creation, yet people all over the world respect it. If so, why can’t humans abandon all myths and fictions, and organise themselves on the basis of consensual conventions such as the dollar?

Such conventions, however, are not clearly distinct from fiction. The difference between holy books and money, for example, is far smaller than it may seem at first sight. When most people see a dollar bill, they forget that it is just a human convention. As they see the green piece of paper with the picture of the dead white man, they see it as something valuable in and of itself. Hence in practice there is no strict division between knowing that something is just a human convention and believing that something is inherently valuable. In many cases, people are ambiguous or forgetful about this division."

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-extract-fake-news-sapiens-homo-deus

I will: 'Things will be different! 'Cause reasons!'

kampai.

Haha. Yeah, I thought so.

(though there seems to yet be some unsettled liquor and bj debt...) (haha again)


Color me puzzled. Izzat any different than all proper rules of civilized, high-class, gay decorum?

Indeed. I would like to hear Jamie explain - if the gubmints can't control cryptocurrencies, how are they gonna shut them down?

Random thoughts spurred by referenced article:

1) After clarifying that, under current US regulatory regime, Bitcoin is classified as a commodity, the author goes on to describe requirements for entities dealing in commodity futures. Relevance? None that i can see.

2) Unless, as seems likely from the article, ICE is planning to be able to engage in partial reserve Bitcoin trading:
"The federally-regulated exchanges require clearing services that effectively remove credit risk for both the buyer and seller. The clearing house guarantees that the seller will deliver the sugar, coffee, or gold as agreed under a futures contract, and that the buyer will make the full payment. If either fails to perform, it’s the clearing house––which is jointly funded by the trading firms that are members of the exchange and its owner, in this case ICE––that makes good on the delivery or the cash."
We -- the Bitcoin community -- may need to crank up our educational outreach to clarify to the incoming masses that a Bitcoin IOU is not the same thing as a Bitcoin.

3) "By the market close, the ICE clearing house would have arranged to route the cash from the buyer’s to the seller’s bank account, and the Bitcoin tokens would be en route the to the Bakkt digital warehouse."

4) Article describes txs between parties within the Bakkt system as simple database txs, then later goes on to describe this as 'closely resembling the Lightning Network'. I question they know WTF they are talking about,. Perhaps the ignorant author got snowed by Loeffler, the former ICE marketeer and master of outbound communications?

5) ”Bitcoin would greatly simplify the movement of global money,” says Sprecher. “It has the potential to become the first worldwide currency.” - needs no comment

6) "If Bitcoin became the chief currency for retail, it’s likely that credit cards would disappear.
So would ICE and Bakkt be antagonizing ICE’s main customers, the major banks? Not necessarily. Despite the large fees, banks typically make little money processing purchases, since they mainly return those fees to provide services such as fraud monitoring, call centers, and providing rebates that go to such rewards as frequent flyer miles and rental car discounts. Where the banks make big money is on the interest charged on balances on credit cards. Changing the purchasing system wouldn’t alter the amounts that folks borrow, just where they hold those balances."
Bitcoin credit. Hmm.

The market has fairly assessed Bitcoin Gold in detail, and has found it lacking.

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:
 
@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

True, but trivial to counteract.


True, but trivial to counteract.


True, but trivial to counteract. As you point out. Though 'trusted' is not really as important is avoiding nefarious peers.

The law is linked upthread. It has been dug through. The key word is not 'corporations' it is 'taxpayer'. As in, inclusive of individuals and LLCs.

Well, you have not defined what you mean by the term 'users'. But if I may speculate that you are referring to bitcoin transacters that are neither merchants nor miners, the answer is 'of course they are part of the economic majority'.

The issue that I have had with your ongoing position is your confused notion that a count of non-mining validators has some relationship with the economic majority.

Now you seem to be introducing another confused notion that a count of non-mining validators has some relationship with the count of users? Not sure if this is really what you mean, but again, no.


In that 'users' (again, you have not defined the term) are a proxy for the economic power of those users, yes - but only in relation to the economic power of other entities in the system. And again - non-mining validators are not a measure of 'users', for any logical definition of the term 'users'.


None. Well, they can be, if the operator goes in and edits bitcoin.conf. Or is a non-mining validator is cast out of the allowed peers due to dishonesty. But by default, all non-mining validators treat other potential peers identically.

Or maybe, you know, it was the much-vaunted 'hordes of unwilling hodlers' who all shot their wad immediately upon expiration of the mandatory one-year interval for long-term capital gains on their fork proceeds.

IOW, ho-hum.

Well, that may not be the case.

Many in this bct.org echo chamber accept as axiomatic many things that are not true, just because they are part of the local religious dogma. If they'd bother to honestly examine their preconceptions, they'd likely arrive at an understanding of how Bitcoin really works.

Again: the miners implement whatever rules they so choose. They have no need to 'Sybilize', as non-mining validators have no power of enforcement.

So, no.

In order to debate blocksize, somebody has got to be the topic starter. If it has not become clear to you by now, I shall state it plainly. Since flipping the switch about a year ago, I never initiate such conversations within this thread. I only pick up the mantle when I see obvious false claims.

Well, the rather obvious correct answer is that a measure of the number of non-mining validating entities has fuck-all to do with a measure of economic power.

However, your entire argument that the desires of the miners (as a class) is held in check by the desires of non-mining validators (as a class) is utterly dependent upon the assumption that non-mining validator count is a valid proxy for economic power. These numbers bear no relation to each other. Which is why you are either too internally mentally conflicted to be able to see this simple fact, or you are too dishonest in your argument to admit it.

dump. dump now.