Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

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.

[1714175021]

1714175021

[1714175021]

1714175021

[1714175021]

1714175021

[1714175021]

1714175021

[1714175021]

1714175021

[smooth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[smooth]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

[cypherdoc]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

gvts, banks, and everyone else.

 

[msin]

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

[brg444]

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

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

[cypherdoc]

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]

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

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) :  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

[smooth]

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

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) :  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'd say realistic. (Of course he didn't say it was impossible either.)

Has usage increased 8x over the past couple of years? Expecting dramatic change from the near past to the near future is unrealistic.

[tvbcof]

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

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) :  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

Great news!  At this point I'm nearly 100% sure that 'bearish' to Mike Hearn means that the solution will have trouble being brought under control of the current 'powers that be' who own practically everything else.

This is an extra good reason not to let one's guard down.  There is no way that the attackers will ever simply walk away.  Most likely they will shift their efforts to other concurrent or newly hatched strategies of subterfuge and/or frontal assault.

[brg444]

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.

This here is the mistake you repeatedly make and I've seen others repeat during the block size debate.

The more correct version is if every capital in the world is held in Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate decentralization.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, more users does not necessarily translate in more value. On the other hand, more money in the system is a sure sign of an healthy network effect. There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

This is not Facebook guys, this is a money protocol. When speaking of network effect we should consider the amount of capital that is attracted and not only the number of users.

[cypherdoc]

the Next Roll: