Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst?

[KingScorpio]

The systematic (POW) doom, the inevitable emergence of a POW monster in the cryptoindustry, and bitcoins doom to become oligarchic

It is as Karl Marx described it, that in a national economy the big established players all tend to grow in power and size into a monopoly, and it is as we know it from the equally named board game "Monopoly" (picture) the player that owns a big share, of the total size early over time grows automaticallly bigger and bigger, creating ultimately a plutocratic society that creates not as many winners as possible but that seeks to create as many loosers as possible for the benefit and power of monopolistic and plutocratic or oligarchic few. That society might then be vastly influenced by those big players, media, legislation, elections etc. nothing published really matters anymore as the strings are pulled by forces that grew with the system and are now ruling it.

Can this also happen for cryptocurrencies or more specific POW systems?

Yes it is likely to happen and it is already observable, lets start:
Tendencies to manipulate the media:
I wrote an article about the systematic pump and dump scemes and the "bull calls" that are being issued now in the american cryptomedia but it also reveals of a tendency to create vast and big influencing associations. Thinking that to the end, it is logically to understand that associations regarding hashpower in the worlds total POW system will be created out of interests to achieve certain economic goals, similar like caribbean pirates the worlds pow system might get its miner associations, which could hide their secretive coordinating core somewhere unknown and far away from legislation and police in an offshore sector. Such a secretive hashpower coordinating association will then for their reasons behave like a cancer, trying to feast on the smaller POW coins first, then grow in size so it can attack later the bigger ones. The profits from 51% attacks might even be a secondary goal, that delivers the profit, but the true goal being the destruction of trust which that particular POW system had in the first place. Take Verge as an example which lost a lot of trust and confidence after a 51% attack.

What would that mean for the future of the cryptoindustry and the POW concepts like Bitcoin itself?

It would mean that a honorable POS system would get a chance to regain popularity again, take for example the new cryptocurrency index: stakingrewards which lists POS token only. it might be a beginning of a trend to drop the pow concept as its becoming like a wild west.
additionaly the mining pools and leaked or even open associations like shown in their various lamo meeting events, might sooner or later be seen like a the same dragon the people saw in the banking cartels, and then supported them, creating the hype price of Bitcoin, that is now demerging.

Discussing this issue in Bitcointalk.org, revealed even deeper issues of the systematic

We brought and asked for that issue in Bitcointalk, and there we were answered that "Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain." and
"This research proven game theory and economic fact becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward."

Our Fazit: The POW concept will get its huge pool shark that will haunt it, thats unavoidable and Bitcoin marketed as decentral will become central, but a quite low quality unpopular cryptocurrency that will stand for its unpopular ressource waste, caused by its core association of miners, bitcoin isn't made for the longterm, and its even more not made to enrich the collective. It is a zero sum game of its miner cartel against everyone else, using the mass media, and the illusion of decentrality.

with thanks to:

anunymint

Source

[ir.hn]

Yes.  Every system is doomed to centralized the only question is how long it will last.  US constitution held it off for a hundred years perhaps and look at the success it brought.  Shoot for 200 years of limited centralization whenever you design a system.  Bitcoin was a good start but proof of work needs to be improved and many algorithms are achieving various levels of success.

[Zirnitra]

Although I would agree with everything being said about PoW is disagree with this approach of black and white (centralized and decentralized). No one ever heard of so-called semi-decentralized or as some refer them as consortium blockchains?
Just like in nature no extreme opposites will survive. Centralised projects will be abandoned by public awareness, decentralized by institutional market players leaving only some sort of consensus to be done, the one that suits both institutions and commoners. One doesn`t need to be a clairvoyant to foresee developments towards this direction. I hope this remark was of some good use to anyone interested in this topic read.

[goddog]

Perceptive historians recognize that great powers go through a cycle of growth, stability, maturity and decline.

[KingScorpio]

Perceptive historians recognize that great powers go through a cycle of growth, stability, maturity and decline.

do you realy think this way? i would rather say power change its form and how it looks,

compare the roman empire, with the european colonial empires,

europe from beeing an empire -> towards housing imperial centers,

rome officially collapsed and declined but population grew economy continued to grow and is now bigger than ever before,

same is with china and its empire, its gone, but china became even bigger and more powerful also economically richer, although unequality remainded

if the central banking cartels in the west disappear, society might flourish much more, the banksters the billionaires, the warren buffets and the oligarchs will call and propagate this as the end of the usa or the end of the west,

[KingScorpio]

Actually Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain.

This research proven game theory and economic fact becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward.

The article cited in the OP does not give you this information.

No one ever heard of so-called semi-decentralized or as some refer them as consortium blockchains?

Recommended reading to correct the apparent lack of depth in your technological understanding of this issue:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale

(non-censored link is: https://busy.org/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale)

Read all the comments below the blog text.

ok upgraded the article 1 merit for anunymint and his nice help

check article under

https://www.cryptoproductivity.com/single-post/2018/06/07/The-Systematic-POW-doom-and-the-inevitable-emergence-of-a-POW-Monster-in-the-Cryptoindustry


i will now add the issue with the mass media which i wrote also in a seperate article and prepared it.

i think i will write more often helpful articles around the economy and reward my merit here for the good helpers those articles then give important insight

regards

[KingScorpio]

Ty. Please fix the “source” link in the OP. It is a broken link. I will delete this post after you fix it.

thx for your help,

next article i write is about systematic media corruption,

[goddog]

do you realy think this way? i would rather say power change its form and how it looks,

compare the roman empire, with the european colonial empires,

europe from beeing an empire -> towards housing imperial centers,

rome officially collapsed and declined but population grew economy continued to grow and is now bigger than ever before,

same is with china and its empire, its gone, but china became even bigger and more powerful also economically richer, although unequality remainded

if the central banking cartels in the west disappear, society might flourish much more, the banksters the billionaires, the warren buffets and the oligarchs will call and propagate this as the end of the usa or the end of the west,

Global economy always grow, but as soon as  energy get concentrated into a little point a new big bang will happen.

Egypt was big and powerful,
Greek was big and powerful,
Phoenician was big and powerful,
Rome caput mundi, but now Rome have no power,
France was big
Spain was big
Europe have a little power compared to the past,
Japan was the most advanced country in electronics,
China is big and powerful now, but as any other population in the history they will become victim of their power.

Colombian cocaine cartel now have a lot of concurrency from peru, bolivia, brazil and china

Motorola was big
Nokia was big

IBM was big
Altavista was big
Lycos was big

Microsoft was big

deepbit was big
cex was big
bfl was the first asic manufacturer
cointerra was big
knc was big
bitfury was big

bitmain gained his power with their antminer S5, they was nothing before and will be nothing in the future. New manufacturer are already coming up eating bitmain resources.

I'm not so updated with the latest pos evolution, but from what I can understand, there is no way to prevent a staker to validate blocks on infinite parallels chains so it is a solution to nothing.

[HeRetiK]

Most coins have already been mined, current and future mining operations will never be able to amass (crypto)capital in the self-devouring vision of capitalism that Marx brought into the world. And due to the ever shrinking size of the block reward the capital of these "oligarchs" will always be dwarved by the coins mined by hobbyists using their GPUs or even CPUs. Mining may become ever more industrialized, but the initial coin distribution worked surprisingly well, despite or rather because Bitcoin flew under the radar for so long.

As far as 51% attacks are concerned -- Bitcoin is lucky to be the largest coin using SHA256 and in a weird turn of events, ASICs may actually be what keeps Bitcoin relatively safe from miner associations as described by OP. Given the amount of GPU based hashpower that is currently distributed amongst various alts, things would indeed look grim if Bitcoin were still a viable target for GPU miners. That being said, I'm actually surprised how few attacks actually take place. Many alts could be pretty much eradicated if a large enough miner would decide to do so. Heck, even Bitcoin Cash, despite being one of the top 5 coins in terms of market cap, could be wiped out at will, just because it shares its PoW scheme with a much larger counterpart (ie. Bitcoin).

PoS does have the advantage of not being vulnerable to what I would call drive-by 51% attacks. The question of fair distribution is unlikely to be solved by PoS though. Matter of fact it's pretty much built upon the principle of gaining capital merely by owning capital.

[...]

deepbit was big
cex was big
bfl was the first asic manufacturer
cointerra was big
knc was big
bitfury was big

[...]

BFL was the first to announce; Avalon was first to deliver[1]. They beat BFL by what turned out to be the longest 14 days ever.

Also you forgot to mention ASICMiner. RIP friedcat

(technically friedcat is probably still alive, but he pretty much disappeared into thin air)

[1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/avalon-ships-bitcoins-first-consumer-asics-1358905223/

[HeRetiK]

Most coins have already been mined, current and future mining operations will never be able to amass (crypto)capital in the self-devouring vision of capitalism that Marx brought into the world.

Incorrect. Please do not spread incorrect information to the n00bs.

Sir, you have a transactions fee tragedy-of-the-commons elephant standing in your living room and presumably do not even see it. Can you please open your eyes?

In terms of currency issuance, most coins already have been mined, that is a fact. (referring to Bitcoin, of course)

Obviously I misunderstood your argument though.

So what you are saying is, that in the long run, an oligarchy of miners will amass the majority of bitcoins through transaction fees? Meaning that even old stashes from the pre-ASIC days will trickle up towards miners?

That's a very interesting line of thinking. I doubt that the shift from block subsidies towards transaction fees alone will redistribute wealth in any meaningful way though. Bitcoin would become unusuable long before transaction fees reach such levels. People would simply switch to different means of payment. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and does not and will never have a monopoly on money. Thus "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will likely be too small to have much impact on wealth redistribution towards miners.

The theory about how relying on transaction fees only will destabilize the network due to a shift in incentives due to higher payout variance is quite interesting as well. In practice the fundamental assumption of high payout variance will likely not hold though. The report itself acknowledges that Bitcoin running at or close to capacity decreases variance [1]. Assuming Bitcoin gaining popularity, this will likely be the case. In the case of Bitcoin not running at capacity, "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will be even less.

[1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/

So the bottom line is that proof-of-work was designed to become fully centralized. See also the Decentralized section of @anonymint’s latest blog.

Conjecture.

And that doesn’t even include the other possible ways the miners might steal all your tokens if you donated them to “pay to anyone” by using the SegWit trojan horse transaction format.

The only way to steal P2SH SegWit transactions is by rolling back via a hard fork. Good luck with that.

And due to the ever shrinking size of the block reward the capital of these "oligarchs" will always be dwarved by the coins mined by hobbyists using their GPUs or even CPUs.

Incorrect for the reason above and for the reason that you admitted below which is that these altcoins have nearly no security and thus very low real value.

I stated my case regarding transaction fees resulting in unproportional wealth distribution from hobbyists miners of the old guard towards current industrial mining operations above.

In regards to alt coins have little security and thus very low real value... I fully agree with you, but am not sure what this has to do with the way Bitcoin used to be mined.

but the initial coin distribution worked surprisingly well, despite or rather because Bitcoin flew under the radar for so long.

Incorrect. The Zionists outflanked you. You’ve been duped by your overconfidence and because you did not dig deep enough into the technological details.

What if I told you that I am a Zionist?

Seriously though. That the largest part of Bitcoin's initial money supply went mostly to hobbyists and small scale operations is a historical fact. You can't rewrite history by making theories about future distributions.

As far as 51% attacks are concerned -- Bitcoin is lucky to be the largest coin using SHA256 and in a weird turn of events, ASICs may actually be what keeps Bitcoin relatively safe from miner associations as described by OP. Given the amount of GPU based hashpower that is currently distributed amongst various alts, things would indeed look grim if Bitcoin were still a viable target for GPU miners. That being said, I'm actually surprised how few attacks actually take place. Many alts could be pretty much eradicated if a large enough miner would decide to do so. Heck, even Bitcoin Cash, despite being one of the top 5 coins in terms of market cap, could be wiped out at will, just because it shares its PoW scheme with a much larger counterpart (ie. Bitcoin).

The miner associations are the oligarchy that MUST control Bitcoin else it becomes incentives incompatible. Are you ignoring the link I provided?

I overlooked it initially. I think I covered at least part of it above. Not all of it did seem relevant to the current discussion to me though. That might be because it's getting late in my timezone however. Feel free to point out concrete arguments that I left unaddressed.

[mu_enrico]

I understand that POW will lead to an oligopoly (and maybe a monopoly), but what's with this statement "It would mean that an honorable POS system would get a chance to regain popularity again?" From what I know, POS is inferior to POW and has more security issues?

[HeRetiK]

So what you are saying is, that in the long run, an oligarchy of miners will amass the majority of bitcoins through transaction fees? Meaning that even old stashes from the pre-ASIC days will trickle up towards miners?

That's a very interesting line of thinking. I doubt that the shift from block subsidies towards transaction fees alone will redistribute wealth in any meaningful way though. Bitcoin would become unusuable long before transaction fees reach such levels. People would simply switch to different means of payment. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and does not and will never have a monopoly on money. Thus "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will likely be too small to have much impact on wealth redistribution towards miners.

Your (IMHO incorrect) rebuttal can also be characterized as:

Conjecture[myopia].

Claiming an argument to be myopic while not addressing its content is not very productive.

Claiming that "[Satoshi] (intentionally) left proof-of-work mining vulnerable" [1], assuming both intent and future outcome is conjecture. Heck, even the statement that "Satoshi designed Bitcoin addresses to be secure against quantum computing by wrapping them in a hash." is nothing more than retroactive attribution.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4266048.40#msg39054129

Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog).

If the block size remains 1MB as Satoshi intended, then transaction fees must rise to by my calculations well above $50,000 per transaction when Bitcoin rises as a global reserve currency that it was intended to be.

Bitcoin was not designed for our use. It is designed to be used for settlements between large banks, central banks, and maybe Lightning Networks Mt.Box hubs.

The 1MB blocksize limit was introduced for both technical and security reasons. Satoshi himself actually did consider increasing the blocksize further down the road:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

Whether Bitcoin was intended as transactional or as reserve currency, is a question of both speculative and irrelevant nature. How the future will look like in practice, is the only thing that matters. In my personal opinion the jury on whether Bitcoin will end up as a transactional or a reserve currency is still out and will largely depend on how well current and future scaling approaches will fare in the real world.

Please link me to your calculations of USD 50,000,- per Bitcoin transaction.

Bitcoin has a monopoly on being the crypto reserve currency. Everyone who makes an altcoin is trying to take their profits into BTC or fiat, not into more altcoin units. BTC is the common denominator unit-of-account that everyone measures their results with.

Bitcoin has no monopoly on money though. The rest I agree with. At least it seems to apply for the majority of people that they measure their trading success in either BTC or fiat.

You will still be able to transact in BTC units-of-account with very low fees by using an exchange or Mt. Box hub. As you know, with Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLC) it's possible to ensure these won’t be fractional reserves (if users are diligent).

Yet Lightning Networks hubs and exchanges will lack some degrees-of-freedom that a transactional altcoin might have. So there will still be a market for a better altcoin, but this will never displace Bitcoin as the reserve currency because of Gresham’s Law and the inertia of the Schelling point. That Bitcoin is going out-of-circulation is perfectly normal with becoming a high-powered money reserve asset similar to gold. The Bitcoin whitepaper says that Bitcoin is to be a digital gold.

I'm not sure I quite get you there. First you state that a transactional alt coin would be superior. Then you lament that a transactional alt coin would never become a reserve currency. Combined with the dichotomy of transactional currency vs reserve currency you established above this seems to be a contradictory statement.

---

I'll try to dissect the rest of your post at a later time. For now I'll have to leave, I'm afraid.

[goddog]

From what I know, POS is inferior to POW and has more security issues?

This has been true up to now. But we can’t be certain that new development will not change that understanding.

Sure, we can.
Pos don't work, will never work in teory and in pratice. It is like using children to stop a bomb to save the same children.
No matter which esoteric algorithm you try to find, soon or later the bomb will explode and childrens will die. To be safe they need a big trusted centralized shield or at least a personal decentralized shield. Shield is a resource outside the system to be wasted, if it is decentralized you are talking about a pow algorithm, if it is centralized you are talking about visa.

I have stopped to read your posts because your tldrs are too full of arrogance, fud and politics, completly missing fairness and maidenliness.
You would like to be right at any cost without trying to understand your errors.

   

[aliashraf]

Although it is definitively true that PoW is experiencing bad days, I'm against the op:

In my opinion, PoW being nothing less than a great innovative idea is nothing more than just an idea. It needs development and treatment, the very specific job that bitcoin developers failed and are failing to do (deliberately?).

They failed improving bitcoin's SHA256 to resist ASICs and now they are preaching about its inevitability, a ridiculous hype made and propagated by  Bitamain.

Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal for this problem.

But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned"  technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim!

Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering  the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet (don't take junior hackers like Butterin and his stupid 'weak subjectivity'  words or foolish 'slasher' proposal that serious, this kid is obsessed with being genious and will never manage to be one, I suppose) ...

So, forget about changing PoW with something totally new. It is not art, it is not fashion show, it is about technology and science, it is about mathematics for the god sake!

I understand the hype and merchandisation has produced so much fog and confusion, but we shouldn't lose our direction, we should work harder and improve faster. Just check the above link to get better what I'm talking about.

[goddog]

Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal for this problem.

I can not understand why you think pooled mining is so evil. Of course there are few big pools, but starting a new pool is not so difficult or expensive, it is more a marketing than a technology issue. Hundreds of miners can switch to a new pool at no cost if the pool they are using start becoming evil. However having 51% of the hashpower doesn't mean the pool will start to be evil. Can you remember deepbit? or cex? both gained more than 51% but none of them tried to doublespend or attack the network or be evil. Both are death now because miners naturally switched to others pool to prevent centralization.

But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned"  technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim!

Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering  the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet

Finally someone telling truth! Wei Dai proposed a PoS like system in 1998 (bmoney v2)

[KingScorpio]

Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal for this problem.

I can not understand why you think pooled mining is so evil. Of course there are few big pools, but starting a new pool is not so difficult or expensive, it is more a marketing than a technology issue. Hundreds of miners can switch to a new pool at no cost if the pool they are using start becoming evil. However having 51% of the hashpower doesn't mean the pool will start to be evil. Can you remember deepbit? or cex? both gained more than 51% but none of them tried to doublespend or attack the network or be evil. Both are death now because miners naturally switched to others pool to prevent centralization.

But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned"  technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim!

Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering  the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet

Finally someone telling truth! Wei Dai proposed a PoS like system in 1998 (bmoney v2)

hmm ok someone creates a POS system, which makes it easy for someone to create their own token, then same issues like now, too many token are being created.

next problem with bitcoin is basically the still unsolved question: why is the media privileging bitcoin why does it support an established group, and disadvantages the others, why not be neutral as they are supposed to be?

[goddog]

I'm sorry for this OT, please don't read.

hmm ok someone creates a POS system, which makes it easy for someone to create their own token, then same issues like now, too many token are being created.

POS don't work, in teory and in pratice, it was established since 1998. No matter which esoteric algorithm you try to find. POS don't work and will never work because security have to come from external source. It cannot came from the same currency pos is trying to protect.

To secure the blockchain you need something coming from outside. POW is secure because wasting energy is not free. More energy is wasted and more secure it is. Energy is not free. If energy become free, pow will fail, but I trust energy will never be free because of thermodynamics.

next problem with bitcoin is basically the still unsolved question: why is the media privileging bitcoin why does it support an established group, and disadvantages the others, why not be neutral as they are supposed to be?

media privileging bitcoin is something related to network effect and hype. Media work for money, not for the truth. So they will never be neutral, neutral media cannot be sold. Media are doomed by marketing, and will never be fair.

I think bitcoin is the best and the only currency with some sense, but not because of media, but because its development don't care so much about marketing. Bitcoin developers always put decentralization and long term view at the first place.

I think this entire thread is a fake to sell some, not working, esoteric solution. Actually bitcoin pow is not centralized, it is very far to be centralized and I hope it will never be centralized. No one can stop you from buying an asics and start mining, no one can stop you from manufacturing your personalized asic, no one can force you to use a specific pool. Of course there is a very little number of big pools, but thats don't matter, miners can switch pool in any moment and the big pool can loose his power in few seconds.

You have to consider that we are reaching a physics point in asic optimization where it is very hard to improve performances. Antminer s9 was around for some time, reaching the state of the art in chipmaker industry. So asics lifetime is increasing giving space for concurrent manufacturer. Asics are good because they are easy to be produced so entry barriers for new manufacturer are low.

Someone think about mining becoming an oligarchy, but is false. Oligarchy have to mine at profit to keep is power. When crowd are free, they are stronger than any oligarchy, they can mine at loss, only for fun or only to help decentralization killing any oligarchy.

Bitcoin and cryptography are helping a lot of people to become free, to forbid governaments from their life.
You have to be a free thinker and DYOR to use bitcoins, or you will die scammed. That's an unstoppable revolution and will change people minds. Sadly, as any revolution, it need his blood. In this revolution blood is your money when you get scammed by shitICOs, shitcoins, shitcloudmining, or any shit berichfast scam.

[goddog]

ok, I will try to reply to you another and the last time.
Miners, have no power over bitcoins, they can not control it in any way, you keep talking about miners zionist oligarchy, that can start mining an altcoin and steal segwit or p2sh because they say that trb is the real bitcoin. But they can't, they can not impose nothing. they can try to manipulate the market, but they can't win.

Show me a single episode where miners was imposing something. Simply they can't. they tried to stop segwit, they tried to promote bitcoincash, they tried to vote for segwit2x. They failed every time. Miners have no voice because they are slave. They can not go against the market, they can only mine our chain. If you think they are free to hardfork you are wrong, they have bills to pay every month so they have to be fair to not lose their money.

Now you say... miners can control sha256 market, but that's wrong too. They can't, they have to sell asics to produce
asics at a lower price. if they will choose to not sell sha256 asics they will be less competitive.
Sha256 asics are very easy to be designed, there are not so many secret improvements that can be done, so anyone with a little amount of money can call tsmc or samsung or intel or any other fundry and have his chip  done. For the same reason tsmc can not refuse to produce wafers as their work queue cannot be empty.

thats to say asics have to be sold to crowd. People has thousands of way to get very cheap energy, because energy is distribuited everywhere, the real cost is when you need to concentrate a big amount of energy. Also some people can consider to mine at loss, because they don't care as they have others sources of income.

So mining oligarchy have to compete with crowd.

Now you say pow is flawed because miners will never reach consensus without block reward. But that's wrong too. if miners don't cooperate to produce a longest chain they will waste energy for nothing giving away fee reward for a stupid uncooperative war where only one can win(the one with most hashpower).

Now you will say me that crowd are easy to be manipulated with media. That's the only true thing you say, and it is the only real power zionist have. Media manipulation is where blood is needed. Now crowd have access to a decentralized source of informations, everyone can open a blog and no one can realistically do anything to stop information flow over the internet, new generations are able to use tor, search hiddens services, browsing freenet, i2p and so on, and zionist have no power against this. new generations don't need a crappy centralized bitcoincash socialnetwork.

cryptoanarchy work forbidding zionist and making them and their strategies obsolete.

this is my opinion today, I don't think I'm right or I have every answer, I study everyday and I will keep studying and researching, so, tomorrow, I can have a totally different opinion.
My suggestion is always trust no one, DYOR.

[cellard]

Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog).

It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase.

Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty.

It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation.

[HeRetiK]

@anunymint:

After looking through more of your past posts (both here and on Steemit / Medium) I think I now better understand your line of thinking.

While in my opinion some of your high-level conclusions are rather speculative leaps and while I doubt that the narratives you've been building necessarily reflect reality, I see now that there's more substance to your arguments than I initially expected. Going into detail about my points of disagreement would derail this thread and probably be a fruitless exercise for both of us, but I'll definitely keep a closer eye on your writings.