BTC/Seg/BTU Debate: Why I don't mind that miners will take over.

[artik123]

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *with* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

[1715475031]

1715475031

[1715475031]

1715475031

[1715475031]

1715475031

[1715475031]

1715475031

[1715475031]

1715475031

[1715475031]

1715475031

[Xester]

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

By reading your post carefully the main reason why you dont mind the miners taking over bitcoins and making it cetnralized is the fact that you dont even care about bitcoin. It means that you dont have anything to lose if bitcoin will disappear. But the community has great concerns about bitcoin and that is why it is necessary for us to keep bitcoin decentralized.

[lurker10]

From Bitcoin Paper by Great Satoshi Nakamoto Himself:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What is there not to like or not to understand? Bitcoin works exactly as intended, miners enforce consensus machanism with their CPU (ASIC devices these days) power. This is Proof-of-Work at its best.

Read the white paper. Is the white paper not relevant today? Should the white paper be re-written to include other consensus mechanisms?

[Iranus]

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

Decentralisation can mean a lot of different things.  Bitcoin is decentralised - we don't need hundreds of Bitcoin rip offs doing the same thing on another pointless network (or worse, the cryptocurrencies that are quite centralised).  There's no point going on a website and deciding whether to pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH etc when even the more original ones like Monero only make petty modifications to the network which Bitcoin should be able to make if needed anyway through the fact that it's open source.

I do agree that it's good for miners to have the choice - but they don't really, because they know that if there's a hard fork and other people don't support it they'll be mining nothing.  In reality, the economic majority makes the decision as to whether the changes will go through and miners will rightfully be influenced by that majority (which is why, despite Bitmain and others' attempt to manipulate that economic majority with their mining monopolies, Core will continue running Bitcoin).

[dinofelis]

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.

I 150% agree with you.  Decentralisation also means no protocol centralisation and chain centralization, but open competition between variants.  Bitcoin is blocking the scene with its first mover de facto monopoly (for the moment).
Competition between modes of crypto payments, between whale configurations", etc..

[dinofelis]

You are right on target.

Why should I care of Bitcoin? I *really* want the best guy to win. atm as I see it Bitcoin is limiting the rest and open sky is much better for all of us.

though I did have Bitcoins in the past but now I don't. But as a general rule, I see no problem with other technologies breaking through. This is how we evolve.

--> Amen.  The REAL REASON is that the bitcoiners are in it for the greater fool game, and want to become immensely rich because they are from an earlier layer of greater fools than the "rest of the world who needs to adopt bitcoin and only bitcoin".  They are in it for the seigniorage, and so they don't want to share the rest of the supply of greater fools with other coins, even if that means that we are stuck with the oldest and most primitive crypto currency design.

If they were for the economic value of bitcoin, namely "enabling commerce where such was not possible/difficult/dangerous/expensive with fiat means", that is "an internet payment system", then they wouldn't mind having competing tech aiming for different niches.  But they are not in it for the currency usage of bitcoin, they are here, sitting on their stash as early adopters, hoping it will go to the moon, and they will be able to retire early on the seigniorage, paid for by the rest of the world of greater fools.

That said, all of the alt coin scene is mostly also a greater-fool game where you hope to get in early, and others will pay much more later for the stuff you got cheap.

Essentially, crypto largely failed as of today.  Its economic value is minuscule, and it is for 99% a greater fool casino.  I'm not saying it is dead, but it is a laboratory that turned into a casino.  In fact, one can mainly study it to see what doesn't work.

[kusyai]

that until it happens it's very bad impact on the users of bitcoin, we will feel disadvantaged, so we just pray that it does not happen

[zimmah]

Miners always had the power to set the blocksize, it's not some new power they're trying to gain.

They are trying to prevent core from stealing it away from them.

[paul gatt]

crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway. That's the correct thing, because bitcoin is the core currency, it's like the king of the other coins. However, the king is currently struggling and competing for power. And the king is fighting his son to stay in power. The BTC is the king, and BU is the goofy son, the son does not know his father's power and deliberately destroy everything. Of course, BTC never subdued, it has tremendous power and is ready to confront any risk, hardfork will take place, a real fight. I hope BTC will win BU, and everything is back to normal.

[dinofelis]

On this one we disagree.
Yes, there are tones of fools, but wise man can make a fortune. It is an experimental lab so many *will* fail.

My idea is that one should not be able to make a fortune without providing value.  Gambling on seigniorage doesn't look to me like providing value.  "being first adopter" has no meaning.  Creating a useful system, yes.  Becoming rich because one was betting on it, without financing it as such, no.  That's not like a share holder of a company that financed the difficult start of the company.  The fact that first adopters gamble on it, doesn't bring in any specific value to the system or to the creator.  Their seigniorage is economically unmerited because no value was produced.

The only value one should obtain from a crypto, is the value of being able to do commerce where this was previously impossible/difficult/dangerous etc... In other words, by the economic gain of exchange, made possible by the existence of a crypto.  Not by being early adopter and sitting on your stash, limiting market liquidity for commerce.

[dinofelis]

Very small king my friend. My mom doesn't use it.

That was my point about its economic value.  Apart people gambling on it, buying and selling it to one another for cash or other crypto, not many people really USE it economically.  My mom neither, and me, very rarely.  I tried, and for some things it has a meaning (buying VPN services, VPS services... if you don't want a link to your identity).  But that's about it.

[dinofelis]

Agree on most.

The real value comes from the fact that as opposite to IPO, where the company already has a lot of value (so the investor is looking for XX%), crypto scene(ICO) lets the small guy in at a very early stage.
You might considered that also as decentralization of power.

When a big company goes for an IPO the big guys are looking to cash out after they made their fortunes...
As I'm concerned, investing in FB when it had a $1m marketcap is much better than investing it when it's on NASDAQ on a $100B hoping to gain some peanuts.
(Actually FB is not a good example, but you get my point)

My point is that crypto is not "to invest in", but to use.  The usage itself raises the market cap (Fisher's formula).  You can of course not stop people from "investing" in it, but it should not be the drive of the market cap.   Most stock market shares are valued for their dividend, which is the value the company delivers to the economy after deduction of all costs.  Of course, sometimes you speculate on future dividend when the company will grow etc... but essentially, a share is an estimate of the REAL FUTURE ECONOMICAL VALUE of the company.  The economic value of a currency is the trades it facilitates over other means of payments.  If by using crypto, a certain commerce happens or happens better and cheaper than without that crypto, this is economic value creation.  But, apart from dark markets, crypto has not much economic value for the moment, and not in any foreseeable future.  (no, people will not use bitcoin when the fiat monetary system crumbles ; hell, it cannot handle it at all !).

[Kprawn]

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

The Bold part shows one of two things.... 1. You do not have any bitcoins or very little OR 2. You are invested in a Alt coin and you want BTC to

go down, because you want people to buy whatever coin you are invested in. Just remember one thing... If Bitcoin goes down, the rest will

follow.... because people would lose faith in Crypto currencies if the strongest Crypto currency fails. 

[dinofelis]

It's a different game... currently most value comes from *expectations* about *future* use...

I don't really think that.  Well, there are maybe people really thinking that bitcoin is going to become a world currency.  In the beginning I learned about bitcoin, I was hoping that too.  But let's face it, this is not going to happen.   As such, to sustain a market cap of 20 billion dollars, and most probably a speed that is several spendings a year, you'd need a non-crypto PRODUCT flux bought with bitcoin of more than 100 billion dollars.    That is Amazon's business size.   You'd need amazon's business to pass entirely onto bitcoin in order for bitcoin to validate its CURRENT MARKET CAP.  So people spending $1000 on a bitcoin are already assuming bitcoin's currency usage of the order of Amazon's business.

However, there is a problem.  Bitcoin on chain will only be able to sustain 10 or 20 transactions per second if ever the 1 MB limit is lifted which I don't believe.  This implies that each buying (each transaction) on bitcoin must be of the order of $100 or $200, or bitcoin can't handle it.  So bitcoin couldn't even take over Amazon's business, because most stuff bought on amazon isn't $200,-.  And that is AFTER being upgraded beyond segwit.

If you allow for "banking layers" on top of bitcoin, you will create extra bitcoin IOU (fractional reserve banking), diluting the bitcoin price over on chain coins, and off-chain IOU, so yes, you can have a higher amount of transacted value, but you will not increase bitcoin's value through Fisher's formula with it.

In other words, the current market estimation of the future economic value of bitcoin already makes very bold assumptions about its use.

I think bitcoin is simply in a greater-fool game, black tulip type.

[Iranus]

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

Decentralisation can mean a lot of different things.  Bitcoin is decentralised - we don't need hundreds of Bitcoin rip offs doing the same thing on another pointless network (or worse, the cryptocurrencies that are quite centralised).  There's no point going on a website and deciding whether to pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH etc when even the more original ones like Monero only make petty modifications to the network which Bitcoin should be able to make if needed anyway through the fact that it's open source.

I do agree that it's good for miners to have the choice - but they don't really, because they know that if there's a hard fork and other people don't support it they'll be mining nothing.  In reality, the economic majority makes the decision as to whether the changes will go through and miners will rightfully be influenced by that majority (which is why, despite Bitmain and others' attempt to manipulate that economic majority with their mining monopolies, Core will continue running Bitcoin).

Why are you guys so emotional about Bitcoin?

doing the same thing on another pointless network

You know better than that... Does ETH a pointless network?

ETH is sort of an exception, but even then not fully.  Bitcoin is supposed to capable of change and adapting to different situations.  If everyone ran off every time there was a problem (which they don't, fortunately), then everyone would have to convert all their earnings to a new currency every few weeks and potentially lose all of their money in the process.  Even though ETH makes some useful contributions to the blockchain technology which Bitcoin is likely to not use, with most cryptocurrencies it's strange that they result in people arguing for the cryptocurrency itself rather than for any of those changes to be made to the supposedly adaptable Bitcoin network.

[jonald_fyookball]

Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

agree.  I still want Bitcoin to win though as I'm invested in it.

[dinofelis]

If everyone ran off every time there was a problem (which they don't, fortunately), then everyone would have to convert all their earnings to a new currency every few weeks and potentially lose all of their money in the process. 

And there's nothing wrong with that.  First of all, it wouldn't be "every few weeks", second, as the "first adopters" are essentially paid by the "last losers" of a coin, there's nothing wrong with being sometimes "first adopter" and sometimes "last loser".  After all, the idea of a currency is not to "hold your wealth", but as something you acquire to do commercial interaction with (selling and buying services and stuff). 

[dinofelis]

I think that you are going to be surprised in the near future.
Just my opinion, but I think that we would see hundreds of different niches filled by different coins.

That's also my opinion of the "good"  outcome of crypto, where you buy a crypto because you want to use it, and then forget about it.   The thing that is needed for that are fluid decentralized exchanges (not big things, and not with all coins, but just linking a certain number of coins together, where essentially both parties put up some collateral (in one of the coins) to do the exchange, and then agree upon exchanging two other coins at agreed-upon exchange rate.

[dinofelis]

On this one we really disagree.

Funny because I think we agree.

Took me one year to understand that Bitcoin is not going to be a world currency.

I realised that not so long ago in fact.

Others will have that niche . If it does succeed, I see it more as a store of value like gold.
Sure, you could buy with it something at the store but most wouldn't.

Yes, bitcoin will be (at best) a *reserve currency*.  But it will not be adopted by mainstream as THE reserve currency, however, it is practical as a reserve currency for everything unregulated, half unlawful, and dark finance.  Its transparent nature, however, is maybe not the best thing for that.

For the moment, with block chain tech, no linear block chain tech currency can ever hope to be a world currency on chain, and if you take it off chain, you have banking.  You need tree like structures and not chain structures in order to even hope to become a world currency.

[dinofelis]

I think that you are going to be surprised in the near future.
Just my opinion, but I think that we would see hundreds of different niches filled by different coins.

That's also my opinion of the "good"  outcome of crypto, where you buy a crypto because you want to use it, and then forget about it.   The thing that is needed for that are fluid decentralized exchanges (not big things, and not with all coins, but just linking a certain number of coins together, where essentially both parties put up some collateral (in one of the coins) to do the exchange, and then agree upon exchanging two other coins at agreed-upon exchange rate.

I see the future as coin to coin directly, without BTC being as an intermediary.
So you could have your own likable coin, and it could be traded on spot for the one that the merchant accepts with a minimal fee.

Sure, I didn't mean to say that BTC has to be the collateral.  But I don't see how you can trade without locking in, the time of the trade, the collateral (worth more than both offers of the coins to be exchanged including fluctuations in exchange rate during that time), the time you settle on an exchange rate.