A Question for Bitcoin Maximalist

[MyownBoss]

Your technical expertise are appreciated elsewhere this was a logical discussion about Bitcoin and only Bitcoin's future. Not the future of the whole world.

Bitcoin can't be fixed. The issue that your OP explains in insoluble. You can only hope to replace it. Bitcoin will be scaled up centralized. And it will enslave the world. Period. That is the answer.

"I offered another option, but you don't want to discuss it. So end of thread."

Thanks for the input

[iamnotback]

As AnonyMint predicted back in 2013...

The centralized Bitcoin won't be 51% attacked bcz those controlling it will have the 666 control system they designed Bitcoin to accomplish. In the transitionary phase now, the Chinese miners will be handed lots of wealth as the process of centralizing mining proceeds. We can't say every Chinese miner today knows he is part of the ultimate plan. We can't even say the Blockstream devs know they are part of some diabolical plan. They are just trying to fix a design that can't be fixed without restarting from scratch. Compartmentalization is the modus operandi of the DEEP STATE. This is a process. The DEEP STATE that designed Bitcoin has a plan over years.

Our other hope is the system blows up technically. But that is why Blockstream is receiving so much funding, because they probably have the expertise to centralize Bitcoin sufficiently whil still being able to give some illusion of decentralization for sufficient time that Bitcoin maximalists fall into the trap, of which SegWit is a major step in that direction.

https://bitconnect.co/bitcoin-news/126/what-is-gavin-andresen-telling-china-chinese-ama-details-revealed

The one-time anointed king of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto himself ... When asked about his association with Blockstream, who some see as a force looking to centralize Bitcoin, he did not seem to be in alignment with their agenda...

In regards to the centralization of Bitcoin, he now works for the Media Lab at MIT, who has just come out with a controversial concept known as ChainAnchor... ChainAnchor would coerce miners to not allow transactions that do not have the identities of the users of Bitcoins tied to their transactions and wallets, defeating the peer-to-peer, identity-protecting foundation of Bitcoin itself. Andresen also is a paid technical advisor to leading Bitcoin companies like Coinbase, BitPay, and Xapo.

His commentary on the upcoming Lightning Network concept was less than glowing...

[iamnotback]

[iamnotback]

Unlike Armstrong, I don't believe the masses can ever be saved. Never has that been the case, e.g. in the French Revolution they accomplished in the end totalitarianism under Napoleon. Nature purges the masses such as with the Black Death that killed a majority of Europe's population. I believe the powers-that-be will win control over the mainstream monetary system and they and the masses will decline together in a morass. I hold my hope in the bifurcation of the economy into a dying Industrial Age (which the powers-that-be and masses control) and a fledgling Knowledge Age which is controlled by the hackers and knowledge creators.

I understand Moldbug's "Only One Currency Can Win" which Satoshi also apparently validated.

And I have explained how I think a bifurcated economy could violate Gresham's Law and allow for two monetary units to coexist globally analogous to how national currencies coexist due to a Coasian barrier of individuals not trading directly internationally.

The one unit will be controlled by the banksters and the masses and this will be the 666 slavery system. The other crypto-currency unit will be for those who hold their "unit-of-account" in "units-of-knowledge". You see as a hacker, you don't care about money as a store-of-value, power-law distribution enslavement paradigm. We care about code and the freedom (power) to build (software, 3D printing designs, etc). The models of remuneration employed thus far for "open source" have depended mostly on large corporate funding. This has locked us hackers into the Theory of the Firm rigor mortis paradigm but remember knowledge can't be enslaved nor financed monetarily. Whereas what we really need is direct remuneration via micro payments.

Note the banksters need this alternative monetary unit too. For they need a place to hide their wealth from their own morass, and because if they squelch all knowledge formation, they will destroy their cancer's host and perish. Precious metals are no longer even functional in the competition against knowledge.

Do understand that everyone who is creative and likes to build things is a hacker.

I believe I know what needs to be done in terms of an altcoin. But getting it done may be more than one man could do timely.

[RealBitcoin]

So with that being said. I present two scenarios

A:IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes" thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system.

B: If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil?


I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away

*Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe.

A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.

B) Nakamoto is not the ruler of bitcoin to adhere to his ideas, bitcoin will go where the community wants it. However there will be many principles that will be strongly enforced (21million btc, blocksize, conf time, network structure ,etc) anything else will probably change in 15 years.

But it always boils down to being trendy.

The mindless masses dont care about principles, they only care about trendy stuff.

Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?

[iamnotback]

A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.

Larry Summers is on the board of 21 Inc.. 21 Inc. is contributing to the centralization of mining, since their servers control all this mining being done by end users. It is also their plan to centralized instant payment through their servers. Cripes how come you n00bs feed the hand that enslaves you  

For a viable plan of defense:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1503661.msg15159865#msg15159865

Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?

A trendy expropriation paradigm, yes that is their plan.

[thejaytiesto]

With sidechains we don't need to have the annoyance of having to maintain additional blockchains and having to deal with additional tokens which is just stressful. Maybe some find a niche Bitcoin but bitcoin will reaming the king.

All those devs promising a Bitcoin-killer are all talk and no code to be seen. Bitcoin has no real competition, sorry. Start buying and stop dreaming.

[hv_]

So with that being said. I present two scenarios

A:IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes" thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system.

B: If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil?


I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away

*Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe.

A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.

B) Nakamoto is not the ruler of bitcoin to adhere to his ideas, bitcoin will go where the community wants it. However there will be many principles that will be strongly enforced (21million btc, blocksize, conf time, network structure ,etc) anything else will probably change in 15 years.

But it always boils down to being trendy.

The mindless masses dont care about principles, they only care about trendy stuff.

Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?

... Not with those fees nobody can even calc beforehand....

[iamnotback]

How is your 666 TrojanHorse ButtCON investment going to protect you in the upcoming nation-states collapse and 666 lurch to eliminate cash and institute expropriation?

Bend over my friends and prepare to take it deep.

Side chains are nasty hacks that add more problems than they solve, as is the lightning network, segwit and all the other "work arounds".

Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.

Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT. And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi, that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.

How do you calculate that Blockstream is for small blocks 

Blockstream is for making sure they and the Chinese mining cartel control how fast the block size increases, so they can squeeze maximum transactions fees that the market will bear. You could read the Reddit discussion between Professor Jorge Stolfi and TPTB_need_war, which explained this.

And SegWit is all about centralization of validation, so that we get a 666 enslavement system. Do you think the powers-that-be invested $70 million in Blockstream for no reason. Come on. You don't think (Mr. ZIRP and Russian oligarchy maker) Larry Summers (who is on the board of 21 Inc.), Peter Thiel (BitPay, gifted $100k to Vitalik @ Ethereum, etc), and other banksters elite are in on that. Come on.

There is only one possible way you defeat those bastards. And that is to make something so popular, that can't be centralized. Once it is very popular, they will have a difficult time taking it away from the people.

Even the French presidential candidate Le Pen, is advocating banning Bitcoin because she has realized AnonyMint was correct in 2013 when he wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch:

http://www.coindesk.com/french-presidential-hopeful-bitcoin-ban/

Some people are starting to realize that Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse planted to force nation-states off of cash and into a digital enslavement.