Hm... Guess you need a second Revolution to really decentralize the mining...
That would be devolution. Because once upon a time, mining was decentralized. As was pretty much everything else. There even was a time without governments or nation-states. But then man learned to use clubs and crude stone tools, and ...here we are  Actually the term evolution does not preclude into adapting to gain a former trait that has been lost. And bitcoin very well may do that. Sure. Nor does devolution preclude gaining a former trait that has been lost. The thing about evolutionary development tho, is it implies growing specialization and complexity. No it doesn't. It simply implies adapting to different conditions. Complexity often decreases in evolution, e.g. lizards evolving into snakes. Sure. Snakes lost their legs, we lost our tails (which were rather articulate, to boot), mole rats lost their sight, etc. I said "implies." "Regression" and "devolution" are much more descriptive. And, of course, you deftly edited out the gist: ... But you see the pattern I'm driving at. The conditions which caused mining centralization haven't changed, so my guess is it won't change either.
Evolution can go into any direction, also sometimes 'back' (example: whales) . It's all about best, quickest & superior adjustments to the Environment. So if bitcoin want to be top & alive -> flexibilty / evolution is a MUST (decentralization & scalability are most critical points IMO). |
|
|
|
...
unlike fiat, there is NO "illusion" that needs to take place.
Other than the one about 1/21millionth of nothing being worth money, because ...well, there's only 21 million of it, you mean? the 21million coin limit is not an illusion. No. But 1BTC (1/21millionth of nothing) somehow being worth something (possibly due to the limited supply?) is. my willingness to buy ALL the bitcoin is no illusion! Haha, that is a good one. Try better to mine all and I d feel more save. |
|
|
|
Hm... Guess you need a second Revolution to really decentralize the mining...
That would be devolution. Because once upon a time, mining was decentralized. As was pretty much everything else. There even was a time without governments or nation-states. But then man learned to use clubs and crude stone tools, and ...here we are Nearly, if you d put down the market cap as well. Keeping that growing there needs to be a second evolution having better genes and better decentralization forces to ensure the trust given by capital. |
|
|
|
Perhaps decentralization it is not on the hands of Bitcoin only. If all altcoins get a good share of popularity, with effective exchanging between them, that would be decentralization. No mining centralization either, as there will be a lot of coins.
That is rather diversification, but does not really give us the wanted security that we get from proper decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
The crashing is surely related to the centralization / scaling issues we see all coming to the surface and also with the hyped expectations with some new cryptos that will fall on all of our feet soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Hm... Guess you need a second Revolution to really decentralize the mining...
|
|
|
|
For example, there is no store-of-value, when the TPTB enforce capital controls on your Bitcoin because it is entirely controlled by a collusion of China's mining cartel and Blockstream/Fintech's $75 million investment. Store-of-value not only means "holds its value", it also means "returns its value, i.e. doesn't become worthless because it is confiscated or locked from transacting".
You're kinda using double standards. Money is an abstract concept, but at it's core, it's just an IOU. All money is really debt, a coupon that pledges to provide you with goods or services at a future date. No matter what form of money you use, anyone can simply refuse to honor your gold, fiat, whatever, as being a useful monetary instrument at any given time and now you're the victim of a pyramid, ponzi, or pump and dump scheme. Gold does not return it's value because the vast majority of it's value is derived from network effect, not intrinisic value or manufacturing utility. Just because people used it in the past as currency, means nothing about whether it will be used in the future. There will never be any coin that offers guaranteed redeemability because not even real world objects do. The only example I can even think of for money that offers full redeemability and isn't a ponzi or pyramid scheme, is the transformers cartoon where they use blocks of energy called "energon" as currency that can be fully redeemed at any given time regardless of whatever whims the market has. Since matter and energy are interchangable, if you don't have the science to store energy permanently in a stable form, the next best thing would be scarce, non-volatile, non-corrosive forms of matter like gold, which the market seems to have logically chosen. Although gold works decently, it is still inferior to the fully redeemable energy cube example. Best def is like 1h work equivalent ( PoW ) = 1 Money  |
|
|
|
I don't believe the tragedy of the commons argument is a valid one because Bitcoin never existed in "the commons" as something like a lake in the first place due to one obvious reason, it's a for-profit system managed by central bankers. That implies the miners collude, which isn't the case. They all compete for a central resource (BTC) and they try to do so by expending as little energy as possible; that is their rational behaviour. The reason it might be a 'tragedy of the commons' is if they chose to exclude transactions, or any other activities which benefit them but not the network as a whole. My more careful explanation... Thanks for keeping my mind switched on! I give you sth on the way (if you did not come over yet): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits); Wladimir J. van der Laan (3398) Gavin Andresen (1100) Pieter Wuille (966) Cory Fields (332) TheBlueMatt (288) jonasschnelli (246) Luke-Jr (239) Gregory Maxwell (195) MarcoFalke (128) fanquake (118) jtimon (112) Peter Todd (92) cozz (70) sdaftuar (69) morcos (59) paveljanik (52) pstratem (37) muggenhor (34) Eric Lombrozo (32) rebroad (28) domob1812 (25) Michagogo (24) dooglus (22) dexX7 (20) dgenr8 (18) super3 (16) kdomanski (15) casey (15) xanatos (14) ENikS (13) wtogami (12) codler (10) btcdrak (10) wizeman (10) maaku (10) rnicoll (9) ajweiss (  roques ( jamesob ( jmcorgan ( jordanlewis ( 21E14 ( devrandom ( joshtriplett ( Nils Schneider (7) forrestv (7) freewil (7) rat4 (7) sinetek (7) dcousens (7) sje397 (7) celil-kj (7) sandakersmann (7) runeksvendsen (7) mrbandrews (7) OttoAllmendinger (6) mgiuca (6) Matoking (6) vegard (6) zw (6) p2k (6) JoelKatz (6) jrmithdobbs (6) ashleyholman (6) dertin (6) Andreas Schildbach (6) mndrix (5) r000n (5) roybadami (5) vinniefalco (5) Whit Jack (5) fcicq (5) ptschip (5) maraoz (5) federicobond (5) alexanderkjeldaas (5) robbak (5) rdponticelli (5) ... sorry I ran out of gas/time. So, pretty clearly "most" don't appear on the link from Blockstream. Page 43 you'll find some graph. And this doc is very interesting at all (also Visa can be found in that ...) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf |
|
|
|
Even more shocking I heard from Core supporters dismissing Moore Law's. So what's next you got the solution to E=MC2 and Einstein was an idiot?.
This has to be a joke as you obviously have very limited knowledge in this field. Even Moore himself said that it not a law but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.
First slowing in the mid-’90s to two-year gaps, the rate at which tiny transistors compute isn’t accelerating. Soon, too, they’ll have to be so small they’re just a few molecules, perhaps not even effective. And they’re not getting cheaper. Moore saw the future 50 years ago, but we may soon need a different rubric for predicting progress.
.. just wait for the next quantum jump. It's coming ... ( Hope for Bitcoin as well ! ) |
|
|
|
All investors need to know about Ethereum is: Bitcoin is a Bearer TokenEthereum is more like Registered InstrumentQuite a huge difference. One's a "thing", the other is a "pointer to a thing". (Holds smart contracts that tell you you own something, but the "something" is not the Ethereum tokens. Those just fuel the contract that says you own the "something" which might be a house). With Bitcoin, the thing you own are the tokens. End of story. Thats why ETH isn't a limited supply blockchain - as Simon Dixon says "it's more like Fiat, they can print up new ETH whenever they like". Limiting the supply is not an important aspect of the blockchain the way it is with so called "pure currency" blockchains such as BTC  ***** P.S. ****** On another subject, w.t.f. is factom ? Why is it going so sky high ? More or less. BTC - yet - is more money like (store of value) ETH (no real use yet) more fuel like kinda game coin / high volatility expected. Pls get the difference between currency ( Zimbabwe $ is one) and money ( store of value - what fiat is that? / gold? -> BTC ) |
|
|
|
Rational behaviour of the miners is the profit motive; if they don't lose out to the competition (to produce the block) by including transactions, then they will. If not, they don't and they take the loss of fees for the reward of 25 BTC that they don't lose to the next guy. I could also think of a second motive of miners that is to ensure the entire security, because if they own a big chunk of coins. So they have an huge interest to gather a big mining share (best > 50%) because they cannot trust other pools. In this case biggest holders should also be biggest miners! |
|
|
|
As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical. Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.
The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX) But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be.... is this a problem? I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more. not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today.... Good spoken! The newbies are the masses. |
|
|
|
One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise. Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool. Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin? Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it? Along the way we might learn something important. I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before. Is there something special about doubling? It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
1.1mb is an empty gesture. and solves nothing long term. meaning its just a poke in the gut knowing that more growth would be needed soon. the 2mb is not forcing miners to make 2mb blocks. its a BUFFER to allow for growth without having to demand that core keep chaing the rules every month. meaning even with 2mb buffer. miners can set a preferential limit of 1.1mb and still have 45% of growth potential(the 2mb hard limit) not even tapped into and not needing to beg core to alter for months-years imagine it. 2mb buffer and miners grow slowly month after month growing by 0.1mb when they are happy to. without hindrance or demands just like in 2013 when miners were fully able to use the 1mb buffer the miners did not jump to 0.95mb, they grew slowly over months and months. without having to ask core to change.. Thank you franky1: I understand but a 10% jump is at least something and then if all goes well the stage would be set to jump to something more, e.g. 1.2MB. Breaking the standoff seems more important to me at this time; the world is watching us. Great, watching... |
|
|
|
We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.
Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.
Doing Not, would just be anti-agile and retarded.... |
|
|
|
All we know is that the FeeMarket is already there. Just some years too early as expected.... |
|
|
|
And this is the best example I know to really start that training now (!), not when it's too late (typical human error ).
Your patronising tone doesn't really help your lost cause but go ahead and see if Gavin will start telling everyone that they need to do some serious hard-fork "training" (perhaps you can help him to organise a "keep fit for hard-fork" exercise regimen).  Yeah - now you got that - and yes I'd support any fittness trainings for this great experiment here, patronishly if needed. |
|
|
|
hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.
Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold. Agreed, for Investments it's a bit different. It's a grey zoon all here ... |
|
|
|
[excellent post]
So true. The best you can do is observe when experts debate, e.g. smooth and I, or gmaxwell and I. Then form a judgement based on that interaction. No expert has debated me on Ethereum's technology. Everyone ran away and hid, or implicitly agreed. So that should be an indication to you, that I am very likely correct on my technological analysis of Ethereum. Note I would not claim to be an expert on some aspects, such as the math of elliptic curve cryptography. Neither is smooth. And saying that, I was thinking now for long time we are lacking a proper risk metrics for all that. So what you think of starting new thread say "Claim for regorous risk analytics for crypto ccys" or better create an open Crypto Rating Label for any ccy & sidechain that would take this into account like Market Risk (Volatility, VaR,...) - standart stuff here. Liquidity Risks (exchanges, coin distribution, transparency,...) Cyber Risk (hacking, steeling of private keys,..) Systemic Risk (high level attac vectors, economics, centralization, Violation of CAP,...) Operational Risks ( DEVs, Community, Release cycles,..) ... I'd love to see such ! And would help so much for all Investors ( edit: Software Traders). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
