|
June 04, 2017, 05:33:09 AM |
|
While the opening post contains some interesting statements, I find the "accusation" of "capitalism" in bitcoin strange: bitcoin is pure anarcho-capitalism, and it is one of its value propositions, to be "pure capitalism".
I agree that Core has an agenda: the lightning network, and that they want bitcoin's brand ; and I also agree that it is *prefectly normal* for any entity to try to do so, after all, bitcoin is trustless and permissionless, so everything that can be done, is permitted to be done. Trying to put one's hand on bitcoin is such a thing, so this is not only "part of the game", it is the "essence of the game".
Core is the de facto central authority of bitcoin because they are the software monopolist. As visibly (even though totally incomprehensible), only one single crew of people "can write bitcoin code" or so they propagated their reputation, they can of course do anything they like with bitcoin, including giving themselves a huge stash, because they write the only code that visibly people run. They are hence total masters of the protocol - unless a few other people start writing their own code and people "trust" them (in a trustless system, that's a funny statement). Even though the real consensus power in bitcoin is hash rate, they've taken the providers of hash rate as dumb sheeple that just install their code ; when these dumb sheeple found out they were taken for dumb sheeple, things turned sour.
Indeed, Core wants to change fundamentally bitcoin, and its basic principles, because they have invested heavily in the development of an entirely different technology of doing transactions, the lightning network. For that, they need to force people off the chain, because otherwise, their LN has no value. For that, they have been inventing a lot of silly excuses of which the two most important are: - the decentralization of the network depends on how many poor Joe's run a full node in their African basement with a 56K modem, to keep the Chinese sheeple in check - only soft forks are acceptable.
These two stupid arguments which have no foundation at all lets them profit from a blunder Satoshi made, which was the introduction of the 1 MB block size limit. These two false statements are the straw to which they hold themselves to be able to push people off the block chain.
After all changing the block size parameter, trivial as it is, is technically a hard fork (boooh !), and Joe cannot afford to download big blocks on his pentium 3 in his basement, so we need Joe to keep the vile Chinese in check.
Two entirely false statements that should keep bitcoin's on-chain transaction rate totally crippled, with the sole outlet the LN.
The irony is that the LN is actually only safe on an unlimited block chain, because the safety of the LN comes from the possiblity to settle: a huge LN that can only settle on a crippled block chain is entirely unsafe. The LN makes sense only on chains where you have a guarantee that you can settle. For instance, a chain with masternodes.
That said, they are entirely right to try to do this. After all, bitcoin being a trustless, permissionless rip-one-another-off system, it is their good right to play the game too.
|