Indeed.  We've definitely had this conversation before in a 24 page topic, in which franky1 spent most of his time arguing that it was absolutely fine to convince impressionable new users that BCH is Bitcoin (and that the fault for the confusion somehow lies with bitcoin.org).  It's not exactly a shock he's trying to post the same nonsense here.

There's always the matter of what compromises they had to make to achieve that speed.  As a loose analogy, there are vehicles in the world that are much faster than the one you might drive, but not all of them are practical for your needs.  Anyone who truly understands cryptocurrencies will know that there are multiple factors to consider, not just how fast a coin reportedly is. 

Will it be as secure?  What privacy implications will there be?  Is it open-source?  There are numerous questions that need answering before I can see this project as anything other than baseless hype.

And how does Bitcoin resist against a corrupt financial system if you weaken its security?  Some might argue what matters for Bitcoin is that sweeping changes are put on testnet to make sure you don't wreck the network.  Are we permitted to discuss your timetable for putting this on a testnet?  Is that allowed?  Or do you just want some friendly "yes-men" to inhabit your topic and tell you how great your radical and unproven theories are?  'Cause I'll be honest, you don't really see that around here.

To quote a popular adage:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

This has nothing to do with speculative investments or prices.  Bitcoin has numerous contributors who all believe in what they're doing.  I can promise you that you don't have a monopoly on wanting what's best for this little project of ours.  The only difference I can see is that the other contributors tend to spend less time arguing about what should be done and more time developing, coding, testing and demonstrating beyond all doubt that their ideas are viable.  They don't just lay out a roadmap, they actually go and build the road and then see who follows it.  

Don't ask for permission.  Don't wait for people to pledge their support.  Just do it already and let the code speak for itself.  Not only is this about as encouraging as I'm capable of being, it's also likely to be the only way your idea is going to move forward.

So I'm just about scraping into the marginally-above-average category.  Good to know I'm pulling my weight.   

That much has been evident from the offset.  Like it or not, change doesn't happen unless others agree.



Reject whatever you like, but it's not us who needs to convince you of anything.  You're the one proposing the change.  You need us to stop rejecting your argument.



There's that "we" stuff again.  If a proposed idea don't have consensus, then it categorically isn't "we", it's just "you".  But, by all means, make your improvements, put 'em on a testnet and give people that choice.



And no one is stopping you from going ahead without hesitation.  Just don't expect everyone else to automatically tag along for the ride.  You can make absolutely any changes you like.  Some users may like those changes, others may not.  It's just a chance you'll have to take.  There's no "magic" involved.  It's just people running the code they want to run.  

If you're convinced that your code is going to be better, then good for you, I guess.  But some of us don't share your enthusiasm and would like to see it in action first before we decide.  Feel free to keep arguing, but at this stage you'd probably be better off just concentrating on your code.

I've always wondered if the funds that frequently get stolen from exchanges have a higher propensity to end up being used on the darkweb.  Has there been any research into that?  Wouldn't surprise me if there was a link.

I'd say that while the concept of Bitcoin certainly unites people, there are definitely some very divisive politics involved when it comes to the implementation.   

But provided most people still believe in the underlying principles of freedom, transparency, decentralisation and open-source, then yes, there should be enough unity for Bitcoin to thrive.

Feedback doesn't always correlate to overall trust.  If you made a successful trade with someone and left them positive feedback, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the feedback they've left other people.  You should include or exclude users based on the feedback they leave, who they have added to their own trust list and, in general, the judgement and reasoning they demonstrate in their encounters with other users.

But yes, to answer the question, you need to add them manually.

I'd say his confusion probably stems from the fact that he doesn't know what real cryptocurrency is.  It's almost certain that different regulations would need to apply to Ripple, because a company is in control of it and companies need regulations to ensure they behave themselves.  Real cryptocurrencies are self-regulating and therefore only the service companies holding customer funds as a custodian or offering fiat exchange need to be regulated.  Protocols don't need regulation if they're decentralised.

So in your subsequent screed, we establish that the discussion contained within this topic has absolutely nothing to do with scaling or adoption, but in that regard, you have even more sections of the code you'd ideally like to tamper with (as if the part in this thread wasn't controversial enough already).  I'm so glad we got that straightened out.

If you're going to change everything and the kitchen sink, why not launch an altcoin and prove beyond doubt that your ideas are actually workable?  Or, at the very least, let's see a Bitcoin testnet first.  If there's a working concept to draw direct comparisons with what we currently have, to actually see the purported improvements in action, people might be more receptive to the ideas.  Definitive proof is infinitely preferable to some well-intentioned suggestions of what you think would be better.

Oh, so your anti-ASIC paranoia is somehow a humanitarian issue now?  Honestly didn't see that one coming, but okay.  Let's see where this goes.  Should be entertaining if nothing else. 

And how, exactly, is getting rid of ASICs going to increase adoption and help with scaling?  I'm sure it must make sense in your head, but you appear to have skipped ahead a few points in your explanation of... whatever it is you might be going on about?

Not yet, at least.  But given what appears to be a looming escalation in the global financial crisis, along with increasing levels of surveillance and authoritarian governance around the world, some people may well have to learn this lesson the hard way.

Start again and read the whitepaper.  There's nothing in there about Bitcoin being a means to accumulate more fiat.  Some would say you're missing the point.

You gain economic freedom from using Bitcoin, not by exchanging it for fiat in a futile attempt to get rich.  If you're not confident, it's probably because you're doing it wrong.

What sounds familiar is that you didn't answer the question.  I'll repeat it:  

Name something more efficient than an ASIC that you can use right now, at this very moment, to mine Bitcoin.



"Provably unfeasible", eh?  Well that certainly sounds impressive.  But I could have sworn IfDefElse themselves described those figures as "estimates".  Are we deeming estimates valid as proof now?  Is that how this works?

They also state this assumes no one makes an ASIC with High Bandwidth Memory when the cost for that comes down over time.  In which case, they concede x4 against Ethash and x1.5 against ProgPow.  Not exactly what I'd call comfortable margins.  And this is just the technology they can foresee.  Perhaps when ProgPow has been around for as long as Ethash, it'll be more like x4 for that too.  There are any number of variables in this that can't be predicted.  As such, I don't think there are many things regarding the future that are "provably unfeasible".  It's more of a "wait and see" kind of deal.



So in other words, you don't have anything else to reassure us with?  Got it.



ASICs are not breaking encryption code.  I thought we had established this already.  What's wrong with you?  

Reality.  Name something more efficient than an ASIC that you can use right now, at this very moment, to mine Bitcoin.    



Now that you mention it, I would love for you to draw more attention to your irrationality and faulty reasoning with a larger font.  Go nuts.  I'm particularly fond of the "magical devices" bit.  Let's hear more of that.



That or your reading comprehension needs some work.  ASICs are inevitable.  My point was that it's unlikely all manufacturers would manage to release them at the same time for a new algorithm.  The company with the most income to invest would likely get there first.  Your proposed actions would open the door to the potential of one manufacturer gaining an advantage over the others for an unknown period of time.  We've clearly moved beyond that stage in SHA256, where anyone can manufacture an ASIC for it now.  So why turn back the clock by choice and take the chance of creating a larger imbalance than the one we moved past ages ago?  It's a baffling stance.  

If the cost/reward ratio works out, no matter how much ingenuity a given algorithm has, a static obstacle invites progressively advancing ingenuity to overcome it.  The static obstacle is unable to adapt to the efforts of the person or group attempting to overcome the obstacle, allowing ample time to probe for weaknesses and workarounds.  Ergo, it doesn't matter how good someone is at designing a puzzle, more often than not, they tend to be solved given time.



And you're willing to reassure the entire world that no matter how much time, money and research Bitmain, or any other manufacturer, put into development, they won't achieve anything more than 2-3 times efficiency?  Bold claim.  However, bold claims are not nearly sufficient to sway my view on this.  

What's IfDefElse's budget on ProgPow, out of curiosity?  How many people are working full time on it?  And for how long?  Can they dedicate more time, money and research into creating it than hardware manufacturers can into "cracking" it?  What information can you give us that might bolster your stance and convince us that your proposed action will actually be worth the considerable upheaval?

---

Call me paranoid, but if there's going to be any talk of a new algorithm or consensus mechanism, I'd personally rather see something battle-hardened and not some new and experimental idea fresh from the drawing board.  Kudos for your efforts and all, I certainly don't mean to diminish your work in any way, but the security of the Bitcoin network is hugely important.  Obviously I can't speak for everyone but, for me at least, security easily takes precedence over some vague idealism about how ASICs are considered by some to be a problem.

I see the crypto world as a permissionless one that can't be stifled.  Social contracts can't enforce limitations.  When it comes to running code, people will only enforce and adhere to the rules they agree with.  The manufacture of hardware is a different matter.  It isn't something you can easily regulate.  And from the perspective of a cryptocurrency enthusiast and believer in permissionless freedom, I don't think it's something we should try to regulate.  If you want to try to build a new coin using the 'honour system', where you trust participants to agree not to use the most efficient means of mining it, then by all means go for it, but in my view that's weak and I won't support it in Bitcoin.



Except that it does advocate suppressing the most efficient way to mine and it would absolutely hurt Bitcoin if we ended up in a situation where some miners were stuck using inferior technology while others manage to obtain ASICs for whatever new algorithm was chosen.  You keep portraying it as some form of injustice that ASICs exist, but the real injustice would be the inevitable disparity of some mining on inferior hardware when others had a major advantage.  Say what you like about ASICs, but any manufacturer can make them for SHA256, so no one company can gain a major advantage now.  You would also likely bring more financial harm upon Bitmain's competitors than you would Bitmain if you pressed the reset button and undid all their research and development before they can achieve return on investment.  It's not remotely the simple change you describe.  There are real and tangible consequences.



Perhaps we need to stop anthropomorphising hardware here.  We're talking about machines designed and built for a purpose because there is a financial incentive to do so.  Nothing more, nothing less.  These overly emotive pleas to define them as "parasites" are not productive avenues of discussion.

I have far more doubt in the competencies of national governments and banks than I do in anything else in life.  Have you looked at the world lately?  I don't see how people can doubt Bitcoin in comparison to those things.

Then why are we having a discussion about changing the environment to benefit those who haven't adjusted?  This topic is advocated reverting back to an earlier stage in evolution in the vague hope things evolve differently this time.  You don't encourage weak species by removing all the predators and pretend that's how it was intended to be.  Current generation ASICs are the top of the food chain.  For something to no longer be top of the food chain, it either takes the introduction of a more advanced predator (the preferable option), or an extinction-level event (the likely outcome of changing the environment).  Older mining hardware eventually dies out, new hardware replaces it.  Life goes on.

---

Changing the algorithm to combat something that actually has the potential to break the cryptographic has function is a different proposition to changing the algorithm because of your skewed notions of fair play and closing the stable door several years after the horse has already bolted, lived it's life and subsequently died of old age.

Come again?  Maybe you've taken too much crack or something.



CPU -> GPU -> ASIC appears to follow a technological progression.  Each faster and more efficient than the last.  Ergo, progress.  ASICs can't be uninvented.



Even if that were the case (and I don't think anyone here is convinced that it is), I'm still yet to hear anything other than how you think ASICs are bad.  Your ASIC-proof unicorn has yet to materialise here in the real world.  



Are you sure?  You're taking all this rather personally.

---

There's also the notable issue of a number of other hardware suppliers at the time being shady as shit.  It almost seems like there were more manufacturers and suppliers embroiled in scandals and frauds than there were legitimate companies operating in the scene.

And yet this is the first time I've ever heard this definition.  Curious.  Someone might think you just came up with it.   

An inventor can't protect their invention against the passage of time.  There's no cure for progress.  It's what people do.  We find solutions to do stuff faster and cheaper.  Why is this such an outrage all of a sudden?



This seems to be more of an opinion rather than a statement of fact.



Arguably, the system was devised so that the incentive to build a valid blockchain is greater than the incentive to attack it.  A multitude of other coins with different algorithms thought they could do better and subsequently fell at this very hurdle.  What's the rush to repeat their mistakes?



Opinions again.  You haven't actually countered any of those arguments.  Calling them garbage does not constitute a rebuttal.  Thanks for repeating some of reasons why changing the algo has downsides, though.