Armstrong has stated that he will never comment in a open forum.
How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?
With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).
Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:
Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).
Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?
The goal is clear enough, and laudable. It is the path to that goal that remains occluded.
Appreciated.
It is time to either move forward, quit, or shut up (or both).
fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.
Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.
The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it, then the decentralization can control the centralization.
do you care to explain how it's centralized again.
if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.
can you ELI5.
Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).
That alone is already centralization.
And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?
The only retort is that the society will rebel against any monopoly, which is complete nonsense because we have innumerable examples in history and society never does. At least two others made a similar comment upthread.
I have given my support to spreading Bitcoin knowing with complete certainty (based on my detailed posts about human nature, Logic of Collective Action, and historical evidence) that it will end up being used by the State to oppress us (and cypherdoc's Africans too), because it also has seepage and helps to grow the capital base (network effects) for crypto-currency, which can aid the process of making an ideal crypto-currency.
cypherdoc is so excited to enslave the world in a fully tracked money that never existed before in history. Cash was always anonymous. He is ostensibly oblivious to the blood that is going to be on his hands. He is excited about what in effect will a euthanization of the world in the NWO global Technocracy where everything will be controlled and tracked by the State.
allegations of a "better way" have a decidedly hollow ring to them.
Of course when details have been purposely withheld. I tried to give enough of a taste so I could judge the rationality of the community. This was an important marketing test for me to do, which impacts my decision process. I also tried to be vague enough that I could retain plausibly deniability.
To assert that most everything being done in Bitcoin is unnecessary is going to have a hollow ring to it, absent any details. I will just add that Bitcoin is trying to do too much. Too much power was given to the mining. This appears to have been designed with forethought. There was this elaborate strawman built about the tech envy of the formerly unresolved Byzantine General's problem (which I assert Bitcoin does not solve in the context of being resistant to monopolization).
I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples.
Smooth I also don't think it is viable to murder dozens of open source programmers because it would be difficult to obscure on that scale and thus the hacker community would likely rise up and retaliate (and win!). But in terms of stopping an immediate threat or making an example out of a serious threat which can be done in an obfuscated manner so as to not wake up the entire community, I think it is a realistic consideration. Perhaps avoiding outcomes below is contingent on carefully accessing the situation the potential victim has placed himself into. For example, attack the Russian oligarchs and you will be overtly assassinated. Attack the CIA or NSA and they will weigh the cost of murdering versus the risk of waking up the sheeople.
Yeah its posible that one or two people could be taken out in a "suspicious" manner. So as I said earlier, open the project. Get others to participate (even if that includes giving up some measure of your anonymity to do it, and I think it does). Otherwise, as long as you remain critical to the effort, you are betting solely on your ability to actually remain anonymous for your safety. That is difficult and may even be impossible. It certainly didn't work out too well for Ross.
For all we know satoshi's identity is well known to the NSA, etc. (I consider that quite likely). Likewise the developers of cryptonote are probably identifiable by the NSA too. But what difference does either really make at this point? The code is out there. Interest has been established, so the projects will continue.
Agreed all.
Opening a project too soon or launching with a non-anonymous dev has trade-offs:
* loosing first mover advantage
* regulatory threats against an ICO
* no ICO then no $ to pay for development
* no money to pay for development to race ahead, then another effort can leech and create an ICO to steal the work
* radical design by consensus is sub-optimal. Refinement by consensus is optimal.
I don't know how high to weigh your argument that an anonymous launch will cause other developers and investors to be disinterested. I find that hard to believe. An anonymous launch with all the correct attributes is not different than one with a named dev, because by your own logic, the coin should be judged on its open source merits if it is to be truly decentralized. The main killer of an altcoin is a huge premine that doesn't allow the coin to be fairly distributed or any scheme which allows a disproportionate amount of the coins to be controlled by one person or group. Ideally some percent (in the typical power law distribution) of the coins should be distributed to the users of the currency (who don't just HODL and never sell for fiat).
An observation about the blockchain, that I have not seen commented elsewhere.
You are getting too close to my idea.
That is good. If someone launches, it will not be certain it is me.
P.S. I planted this epiphany in your subconscious. Just as smooth planted the End-to-End principle in my subconscious when he told me a pigeon could carry a Monero transaction to the network.
Will be amazing if she is right, maybe she just hopes she is as it definitely makes a good speech. To say with that certainty that blockchain transactions will be part of all public financing and as ground breaking as the internet is quite a statement if we consider just how much trade is done by the markets every day.
Blythe worked for JP Morgan and the banksters. I'm sure she wishes it would be so, since they plan to track and control us with public ledgers which are only decentralized in name but actually monopolized.
Bitcoin can never scale as the internet did because it violates the two key scaling principles of the internet, End-to-end and Principle of Least Power. They might be able to scale it as they did Facebook to most people on earth, but it will never scale to most economic activity on earth (and note the distinction). The only way they win with Bitcoin (i.e. for it to encompass most economic activity) is by oppressing the economic freedom that will drive most of the future economic activity.
Bitcoin is a (planted) ruse to entice people to agree to give up the anonymity of cash. It is leverage against governments and financial institutions that resist takeover by the NWO.
