Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2017, 10:37:51 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 [1480] 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1922460 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 01:56:25 PM
 #29581

Hearn

http://a16z.com/2015/07/27/native-bitcoin-apps-open-source-developer-hearn/
1498516671
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498516671

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498516671
Reply with quote  #2

1498516671
Report to moderator
Join the Crowdfunding Revolution ►► FundYourselfNow.com ◄◄ Crowdsale with
attractive rewards
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 02:41:06 PM
 #29582

cryptocurrency excluding Ripple
...

There is a very slight trend down (black)

Some part of that recent trend is likely that you didn't exclude other Ripple-like assets with economically-misleading market caps such as Stellar.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
 #29583


That’s why the blocksize topic, which I discussed with Chris [Dixon, on the a16z Podcast] can lead to such vitriolic debates. Forks are not the best way to resolve these disputes, but it may happen anyway because some of the people who have become involved in the years since Satoshi left feel like the decentralization aspect of bitcoin is the end and not a means to an end. Saying “You should use bitcoin because it’s decentralized,” is like saying, “You should use Linux because it’s open source.” That doesn’t mean anything to people. They care about what they can use it for, what can they do with it.

so a great example of this which i've talked about before is core dev's insistence on having anyone with a raspi or a DSL modem being able to run a full node as an ultimate goal for Bitcoin.  as if that somehow is the most important definition of decentralization.  that's ridiculous.  just the sheer difficulty alone of running a full node makes that impossible.  most current Bitcoiner's don't even care to run a full node.  yet that keeps getting held up as a reason against bigger blocks.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?  since using Bitcoin is much simpler and affordable than running a full node, shouldn't that be more of a focus for Bitcoin?  it's unrealistic to expect thousands of full nodes to pop around Africa even tho we know fiberoptic cable and smartphones are flooding the region as we speak.  but it is not unrealistic to expect millions of those ppl to be able to use those smartphones to transact in Bitcoin.  so why aren't we prioritizing that vision?  esp since hostile western gvts would find it next to impossible to reach into the depths of Africa and many areas similar to stop individual usage.  and esp since these are the types of ppl who need and who would want to use Bitcoin the most.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
 #29584

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 02:53:04 PM
 #29585

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 02:58:05 PM
 #29586

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create something that might be globally-used but is centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:01:07 PM
 #29587

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:08:14 PM
 #29588

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:16:20 PM
 #29589

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes. 

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center; otherwise we wouldn't have or need that many full nodes.  we'd just need one.  the scenario you're drawing, in contrast, is just a variation on TPTB's one world gubmint doom_to_us_all.  i don't buy that.  Bitcoin has much more potential to change the system as we know it and that's where i think it's headed.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
 #29590

growth?  what growth?  they're still lying to you:

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:21:16 PM
 #29591

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes. 

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:30:25 PM
 #29592

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.  

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah.  given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions.  but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined.  all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today:  users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters.  all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:38:53 PM
 #29593

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.  

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah.  given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions.  but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined.  all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today:  users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters.  all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:46:40 PM
 #29594

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.  

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah.  given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions.  but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined.  all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today:  users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters.  all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.  also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.   taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD.  and then there is always pruning.  i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:52:01 PM
 #29595

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.

It's a fair question whether "most merchants" could afford to (or would) run such a node, the way they currently use credit card terminals. Credit card terminals come with many conditions and significant cost, but they at least don't require a lot of IT infrastructure (at the low end).

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:53:15 PM
 #29596

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.


surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.



let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system?  one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users.  or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.


you're straying away from the thrust of my argument.  which was:  given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious.  the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.  

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah.  given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions.  but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined.  all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today:  users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters.  all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.  also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.   taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD.  and then there is always pruning.  i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.

give me a break with your "pruning". pruning doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin

Quote
most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.  also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.

oh well all fine and dandy then!

please note that most merchants are individuals also and given that most (all?) merchants using Bitcoin at the moment do not run their own nodes I'm not sure how you could extrapolate they will when it becomes much more expensive in the future.

Quote
gvts, banks, and everyone else.

 Roll Eyes

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 04:06:57 PM
 #29597

http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/swiss-central-bank-losses/  - Crappy article, but the last paragraph is hilarious.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
 #29598

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/627151999998525440

USG shill apparently believes Bitcoin will move away from 21M cap

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 05:26:11 PM
 #29599

http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/swiss-central-bank-losses/  - Crappy article, but the last paragraph is hilarious.

Crappy but rather illuminating. Such bullshit.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 05:40:52 PM
 #29600

http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/swiss-central-bank-losses/  - Crappy article, but the last paragraph is hilarious.

Crappy but rather illuminating. Such bullshit.

Your bro Mike Hearn sounds very bearish about BTC

Quote
Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( Huh ) :  I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009828.html

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Pages: « 1 ... 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 [1480] 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 ... 1559 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!