You left out _unwriter.
Have you stopped to think what a centralized panopticon nightmare is being built if the ideals of BSV and _unwriter came to fruition?
Perhaps if you list said ideals, and explain how they might be enforced upon a permissionless system, I could be bothered.
I've heard a lot of sturm und drang from the usual stream blocking idiots completely misunderstanding public statements made by those in the SV community. But nothing cogent or reasoned. Perhaps you'll be the exception. Impress me?
Well, no discussion of ideals, but that's OK. We can work with this.
Before I launch in point-by-point, I need to thank you for not simply wasting my time with another restatement of 'Aussie man bad!', which is almost universally the argument given by Core acolytes as to why SV is not preferable to BTC. So, kudos for that.
With a (virtually?) unlimited block size and with _unwriter creating apps designed to use that block space without restraint validating nodes will be forced to become extremely centralized.
Well, firstly, nobody is
forced to do anything. But yes, if you want to maintain a fully-validating, non-mining client, then yes. You cannot validate
all the blocks without ingesting
all the blocks. Kind of a tautology, but OK.
They will need enormous bandwidth and computational power just to validate the blocks.
Substantial BW, but what of it? SV aims to be the reserve currency of the planet. (So sorry that the BTC has abandoned this aspiration) The limiting factor on how significant the network can grow should not be what level of resources the lowest common denominator hobbyist is willing to invest. To expect the financial backbone of the plant to be limited to the whims of pikers is sheer lunacy.
I'll admit here to some misgivings regarding the entire 'metanet' scenario, wherein the store of all significant persistent data worldwide be accomplished via the SV blockchain. But there are several ameliorating factors, about which I will have more to say after addressing your points. Suffice to say for the time being that:
- such scenario may not come to pass, with SV remaining dominated by monetary txs
- miners are free not to include whichever txs they so choose (in the blocks they win), which may be predicated upon limited data
- there are already only a handful of significant miners, whether the blockchain be BTC, BCH, or SV
- a large number of fully-validating non-mining nodes does nothing for the system as a whole
- the storage of significant persistent data worldwide is already centralized, and such centralization is increasing into a small handful of players
- blockchain-based persistent data stores do not share the same barriers to entry as the Cloud provider world
Archival nodes will be needed to pull down all the videos, medical records, contracts, etc all the time. Those nodes too will need to be run in gigantic data centers.
And what of it? The world's persistent data store is already very centralized. At least a blockchain based solution would eliminate the barriers to entry faced by new entrants into the could space.
Your assertion of "permissionless" above ends up going out the window.
YouKeepUsingThatWord.png
The "blockchain as internet" will be controlled by very few entities.
Yes, but there would be no structural barriers to entry by new entrants.
What do you think will happen when there is a 40MM Binance heist and the controllers of the nodes can meet quickly over whatever _unwriter creates to replace Skype?
Same as happened this last time. All would realize how futile such an effort would be. Are you trying to claim that it would be any different? How many people would CZ need to have convinced to have resulted in a roll back this last time? And if they did, how would the public's response be any different on BTC vs SV-in-your-fevered-psychotic-nightmares?
What about your medical records. They are now under the control of that same cartel.
Well, no. Just wrong. Firstly, you retain the keys to that data. Shared only with those you allow, and only in the manner and for only the time your cryptographically-secured signature allows. But more to the point, do you think your medical records are safe today? In the current HIPAA repositories held by god only knows who, with only the safeguards that keep failing hack after hack?
Your legal record. Your web browsing history.
See above.
All the data the FAANG collects? Now on the blockchain.
Now you're going waaaay out in the weeds. Do you think you currently own the data you share with FAANG? If so, you are beyond delusional. SocMed on the blockchain provides a means for each user to
own their data, and share it only with those they wish, only in a manner they wish, and only for such time intervals as they wish. All through cryptographically-secured permissions.
But all the above is assuming the fantastic possibility that BSV will WORK and people will choose to use it.
Well, this is true. I have no argument here, other than it has already been demonstrated to 'WORK'. But yes, if people don't choose it, then it will not have widespread use. Another tautology. I fail to see how that buttresses your implied position though.
Really what -Unwriter is creating is just a terribly bad version of what usenet already was.
Seems to me to be that in the eventuality that metanet becomes a reality, it becomes not a bad version of usenet, but rather a
better version of
The Internet. In that all data is stored guaranteeing not only redundancy, but with true immutability, and yet cryptographically secured in whatever manner the creator of that data so deems. Net positives.
And it will end up frought by the same problems with DMCAs and censorship and access problems as usenet.
I know.. I can already hear the response: They cant file DMCAs against a permissionless, uncensorable blockchain. Yes they will,
No. (((They))) cannot issue a DMCA takedown against a permissionless uncensorable blockchain. One
can issue DMCA takedowns against individual storage entities. At which point, it becomes the same game of whack-a-mole as BitTorrent.
More germane, if you believe this to be a weakness of SV, then it is also a weakness of BTC. As BTC also allows for immutable storage of arbitrary data upon the blockchain. It merely limits the amount that can be associated with each individual tx.
and since it will collapse to be under the control of centralized members those requests can either be enforced, or ignored, but don't fool yourself. Those node operators are now the government.
It would help if you clarify what you mean by 'node operators'. Presumably you are aware that SV clients are on a track to decouple the various functional entities within the clients in order to spin out data storage, hashing, validation, distribution, and other concerns to separate entities. The assumption of the centralization bogeyman at any of these tasks does not imply centralization at any other. It seems you refer here to the data storage component? What of it?
EVERYthing is centralized to some extent or another, in that we live in a universe of bounded resources. Do you see this a more centralized than BTC? If so, please
quantify your concerns, so we have a basis of further discussion.
I mean they are either controlled by governments, giant business or cartels.
Yes. In time, portions of the system will be collectively controlled by many giant businesses, each in competition with the others that also specialize in that particular task. There is no known way to create a significant system which much of humanity is dependent upon without such large entities. But such control is limited to that allowed by fighting for share in a fair marketplace, where consumers have ultimate choice.
If you think this is in any way more centralized than BTC, you are delusional. How many miners are necessary to reach 51% on BTC?
But they will have total control over information.
No. Again, the creator of each bit of data is free to cryptographically secure their data in any manner they see fit.
It will be a panopticon.
See above.
And Orwell is turning over in his grave.
See above.
It is EVERYTHING whoever Satoshi is/was created bitcoin to avoid.
Popular assertion. I've never seen citations to support it however. Care to support it with any evidence?
How's that?
Quite honestly, much better than expected. Thanks.
Again, I admitted to some reservation over the Metanet concept. But the technical ability to create such a thing does not mean that the miners will be incentivized to do so. And I'm willing to see the experiment through. If indeed it comes to pass, it may be either a step forward or a step backward for humanity. I think the incentives are aligned to be a net forward. Of course, I believe that a relatively small number of significant competitors at each task is perfectly fine. Mostly because the incentives align to be altruistic. Which of course is exactly the balance that satoshi bequeathed us to begin with.
But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even
onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.
So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.
Poll
