Is Bitcoin good enough; there aren't critically important improvements needed?

[turvarya]

I am back because I happen to read this from the guy who created libbitcoin, Electrum, etc:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/17005/bitcoin-technology-worth-nothing-interview-dark-wallet-front-man-amir-taaki/

turvarya,

You still don't comprehend what Eric S Raymond wrote, because you are still trying to assert that certain rent-seekers (e.g. the military industrial complex) are excluded from the model of regulatory capture that Eric S Raymond laid out. He wrote that the costs of the capture accrue on society too slowly for the constituents to recognize and rise up against politically. He also failed to mention that the constituents have many competing political wants and thus are easily divided-and-conquered (gay marriage, social welfare debates, level of military spending, etc) by the politicians in cahoots with the rent-seekers. So the family of military soldiers wants more military spending, community with a military base economy wants more military spending, old person wants more pensions, the younger person more education subsidies, the pregnant person more free maternal subsidies, feminists want more subsidies for women, etc.. You all fighting over finite resources that have been collectivized (ahem stolen a.k.a. expropriated) via tax collection. The only way to make you all happy is promise you all more than exists and borrow via debt. So then you think the regulatory capture of the government by banks is not caused by democracy! Amazing myopia you have. And so what happens when the bubble pops and the promises are broken? WAR. GENOCIDE. MEGADEATH. It is coming.

Read Amir. You are just a slave to the system (a.k.a. "the man").

P.S. you don't have the IQ to find a fault in my thought process. I am thinking on an unifying abstraction level while you are fiddling with what you think are uncorrelated cases or categories. Seriously man, the audacity you have. You don't recognize your intellectual limitations.

Don't tell anybody how high your IQ is, when most people just see you for the delusional idiot you are.

I never said Eric S Raymond is wrong. I said you are.

So then you think the regulatory capture of the government by banks is not caused by democracy

I didn't even mention democracy. I mentioned things, that were not caused by socialism. Are you really too stupid to distinguish between democracy and socialism?
In Austria we learn that pretty early in school. Seems like the US-education system failed you again.

[1715068140]

1715068140

[1715068140]

1715068140

[jonald_fyookball]

I now get your fundamental error in thinking:

Who is the snobby cunt? The Dunning-Kruger idiot who asserts that I a fundamental error in my thinking.

P.S. you don't have the IQ to find a fault in my thought process. I am thinking on an unifying abstraction level while you are fiddling with what you think are uncorrelated cases or categories. Seriously man, the audacity you have. You don't recognize your intellectual limitations.

sorry but I just had to LOL at this....  I don't often get to see
this kind of overt intellectual pomposity: "I AM the smartest guy in the room."

 

Most very intelligent people simply don't talk to the Dunning-Kruger idiots and don't try to interface with them, because it is so tiring and frustrating.

Do you see that core developer gmaxell almost never posts in this n00bs sub-forums. He is not going to waste his time talking to people who can't comprehend and require him to explain the same damn thing 100 different ways.

So if I am gone again, you know why.

yeah....true....now don't bite my head off, but what's also interesting is Gmaxwell doesn't respond to you either anymore.  Seems few "serious" people do.  Why do you suppose that is?  

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Are you really too stupid to distinguish between democracy and socialism?

You are too stupid to understand the model Eric (and myself and anarchists have) explained is that democracy and socialism (and any form of State collectivism) are the same phenomenon.

P.S. Readers this is an example why you never argue with an idiot. They are too stupid to know when they are wrong, and is accompanied by a banal sense of high pride:

• "we Europeans are superior because we are pacifists"
• "we Europeans are more sophisticated and educated"
• "we Europeans have a social model that is more just"
• "Americans are unsophisticated, war hungry gorilla brutes, without a fully developed social, justice, and educational system"

I know damn well their attitude because I have encountered some such banal Europeans here in the Philippines. I have also met a few very intelligent Europeans via this forum, and they are very astute. One of them even informed me how to get instant residency in any country if I want to renounce my USA citizenship on the spot.

yeah....true....now don't bite my head off, but what's also interesting is Gmaxwell doesn't respond to you either anymore.  Seems few "serious" people do.  Why do you suppose that is?  

Let's not stir up more pointless conflict where we don't need to.

I am quite comfortable with the projects I have to work on and their potential outcomes. I don't need the approval of anyone. I just need to ascertain the market dynamics which is why I created a poll.

[allthingsluxury]

Of course, there is always room for improvement and I believe bitcoin is going to only grow that much more in the future. It is here for the long term.

[cryptogeeknext]

Governments, on the other hand, don't task people with anything, they only tax the gain,

Ha
Hahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahah

Perhaps it is so endemic that you don't even recognize it as such. Tax is one thing, what about the time you expend in filling out the interminable forms? That's not a task? Ever stand in line to get your drivers license renewed? Military conscription? ACA for any of you Americans? E-Verify? Shovel your walk within 24 hours of snowfall? Cut your weeds or answer to the council? Provide an authority approved mailbox, and don't use it for any other purpose? Send your kids to an authority approved school or be hauled in? Blow into this tube? Clear the sediment runoff out of this creek that runs across your land? Replace your toilets with low flow models? No transacting without the appropriate licenses?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Not all governments are the same.
What I meant in the quote above is "on daily basis".
Sure, you need to do things time to time to keep things in order.

If you look up my dust-cloud comparison a few posts above, you will understand that two forces play against each other within a star. One is a gravitational confinement field (government) that keeps the star from falling apart, another is a termo-nuclear reaction (businesses) that generates energy and useful by products. If one or the other is too strong the star will either collapse in on itself or explode into outer space.

We need both governments and businesses to turn our societies into nice and stable shining stars. Both parts of the equation need to have clear intentions, be transparent and accountable for their actions. Having an open public ledger seems to be the easiest way to achieve this.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

jbreher, don't even bother trying to debate with this younger generation of Europeans. They've been fully brained washed by the indoctrination over there. Watch Europe crash and burn. My popcorn is ready (but my anonymous coin not yet).

[LiteCoinGuy]

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

correct. end of discussion.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

jonald_fyookball,

Gmaxwell still talks to me presciently.

Ugh. Cryptocurrency. or at least Bitcoin at a minimum—  is _NOT_ about "democratic consensus" cue the trope about democracy is wolves voting to have the sheep for supper. Democratic consensus is a terrible way to handle things, but sometimes its the best available of all possible terrible ways to handle things, but that doesn't make it good. Ideally people could operate on a purely consensual basis and never be coerced just because someone amassed superior numbers.  "Democracy" is particularly intolerable, however, when voting power isn't tied to people-with-shared-interests but is instead tied to spending (as it must be in a POW blockchain consensus).

Our two young Europeans are now up against more than one man with a respected level of intellect.

Btw, I wasn't searching for that with Google. I was reading about the possibility of using SNARKs for block chain contracts and was surprised to read that from gmaxwell.

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

correct. end of discussion.

Correct you don't, but you didn't prove that nobody needs another alt-coin. I see 25 - 30% say they are at least to some degree interested to see these improvements. And I've confirmed from my supporters, they did not vote in the poll.

[Beliathon]

Altcoins will never be meaningfully more efficient than Bitcoin, because they are built on the same technological foundation.

I know you are referring to efficiency of capital not being misallocated, i.e. the efficiency gained from decentralization.

Therefor I assert if Bitcoin falls to government regulation as I allege will likely happen, it is no longer as efficient as the decentralization ideal.

Why do you believe Bitcoin would "fall" to government regulation (what?), when torrent technology has already proved government regulation impotent against a decentralized target?

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Why do you believe Bitcoin would "fall" to government regulation (what?), when torrent technology has already proved government regulation impotent against a decentralized target?

You have a category error (i.e. the analogy doesn't apply). Refer to the linked posts in the OP for the detailed explanation. It appears to be a common mistake. Some guy compared BTC to marijuana growing and another guy to piratebay. Upthread franky1 erroneously compared BTC to cash. And now you to bittorrent. When you can identify a centralized (i.e. single instance albeit multiply-referenced) ledger (albeit decentralized consensus) in any of those, let me know.

Computer science requires understanding of very obscure, pendantic details.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

correct. end of discussion.

One of the challenges of implementing the improvements referenced in the OP, and also a feature to provide serious competition to Bitcoin, is to offer instant transactions that can't be double-spent. When I say instant, I mean you send the transaction to the other party and what you have sent is already an absolute assurance, no need to verify against the block chain.

Perhaps most people think this can't be done with a decentralized consensus block chain. I think otherwise. Any ideas?

Note I think this idea could be incorporated into Bitcoin, and maybe not even require a hard fork. I would need to study Bitcoin's scripting capabilities in more detail to determine for sure. But Bitcoin (and Monero, Litecoin) will retain a disadvantage in scaling that afaics will not be easy for it (them) to fix.

Several weeks ago I stated (in the Monero BCX fiasco thread) I had solved the selfish mining attack and had written down the math. Recently I decided to share that insight.

[cryptogeeknext]

jbreher, don't even bother trying to debate with this younger generation of Europeans. They've been fully brained washed by the indoctrination over there. Watch Europe crash and burn. My popcorn is ready (but my anonymous coin not yet).

It's nice to be perceived young (to some degree I still am), thanks!

I understand your frustration with the government, but the truth is simple - bigger stars need stronger confinement field, they often shine the brightest though.

Anonymity might be a good way out for those feeling that the confinement field is about to crunch under its own weight, though a new type of fuel (Bitcoin) might give it a chance to rebalance and reevaluate the course it is headed.

[QuestionAuthority]

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

correct. end of discussion.

One of the challenges of implementing the improvements referenced in the OP, and also a feature to provide serious competition to Bitcoin, is to offer instant transactions that can't be double-spent. When I say instant, I mean you send the transaction to the other party and what you have sent is already an absolute assurance, no need to verify against the block chain.

Perhaps most people think this can't be done with a decentralized consensus block chain. I think otherwise. Any ideas?

Note I think this idea could be incorporated into Bitcoin, and maybe not even require a hard fork. I would need to study Bitcoin's scripting capabilities in more detail to determine for sure. But Bitcoin (and Monero, Litecoin) will retain a disadvantage in scaling that afaics will not be easy for it (them) to fix.

Several weeks ago I stated (in the Monero BCX fiasco thread) I had solved the selfish mining attack and had written down the math. Recently I decided to share that insight.

It's confusing to me that everyone hates any crypto other than Bitcoin. The claim is that those are just pump & dump for profit but isn't that what many people are pushing Bitcoin for too? Early Bitcoin adopters are looking for the big payday when the value skyrockets. Somehow that's more honorable with Bitcoin?

[Flashman]

Somehow that's more honorable with Bitcoin?

Exactly, it's the difference between a duel and a street brawl

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Why do you believe Bitcoin would "fall" to government regulation (what?), when torrent technology has already proved government regulation impotent against a decentralized target?

You have a category error (i.e. the analogy doesn't apply). Refer to the linked posts in the OP for the detailed explanation. It appears to be a common mistake. Some guy compared BTC to marijuana growing and another guy to piratebay. Upthread franky1 erroneously compared BTC to cash. And now you to bittorrent. When you can identify a centralized (i.e. single instance albeit multiply-referenced) ledger (albeit decentralized consensus) in any of those, let me know.

Computer science requires understanding of very obscure, pendantic details.

I see gmaxwell keeps making my points presciently (the bolded statements are equivalent):

it's really much more than just a money system.  There's people on the forums making all sorts of suggestions: "Lets make a Distributed Wikipedia!".

That one amuses me, one of  biggest reason for my interest and eventual involvement in Bitcoin is that almost a decade ago some people argued that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't be formed because Wikipedia should just be decentralized, not only claiming it was possible but that it could be trivially implemented. I wrote one of my trademark rants on the physical impossibility of true decenteralized consensus, as consensus is a necessary component of replicating the functionality of a singular resource as opposed to a grab-bag of assorted repositories. Bitcoin challenged that view but didn't change was was possible— my views weren't overtly wrong, Bitcoin just works under different assumptions which I hadn't considered at the time... primarily the ability to use hashcash and in-system compensation to create an incentive alignment and to force participants to make exclusive choices.  It's far from clear, and— in fact, now seems unlikely— that these different assumptions are anywhere near as strong as they are for other applications as they are for Bitcoin, and the verdict is even still out on if Bitcoin's properties are even good enough for Bitcoin in the long run.

A lot of the things I've heard that crowd talk about don't make a lot of sense to me... e.g. implementing a freestanding rent extractor which does nothing you couldn't just do locally— which is a pretty common event because in that execution environment the agent can't keep any secrets from the public. It's the sort of argument that sounds good until someone not seeped in the excitement steps up and says "The Russians used a pencil.". Some of it would require the network to perform IO which you can't safely do in a consensus environment (except via trusted parties— and in which case you could just have them compute for you too, and thus keep your program private), and even the things which aren't impossible run into the pointlessness problems that some of the verifiable computing stuff does: e.g. you can ask something else to compute for you, but with millionfold overhead and a loss of privacy that makes it pretty pointless to do in almost any conceivable circumstance.

[jonald_fyookball]

Would you jump from Bitcoin to a coin with the following improvements?

No. Bitcoin can be improved, we don't need another alt-coin.

correct. end of discussion.

One of the challenges of implementing the improvements referenced in the OP, and also a feature to provide serious competition to Bitcoin, is to offer instant transactions that can't be double-spent. When I say instant, I mean you send the transaction to the other party and what you have sent is already an absolute assurance, no need to verify against the block chain.

Perhaps most people think this can't be done with a decentralized consensus block chain. I think otherwise. Any ideas?

Note I think this idea could be incorporated into Bitcoin, and maybe not even require a hard fork. I would need to study Bitcoin's scripting capabilities in more detail to determine for sure. But Bitcoin (and Monero, Litecoin) will retain a disadvantage in scaling that afaics will not be easy for it (them) to fix.

Several weeks ago I stated (in the Monero BCX fiasco thread) I had solved the selfish mining attack and had written down the math. Recently I decided to share that insight.

It's confusing to me that everyone hates any crypto other than Bitcoin. The claim is that those are just pump & dump for profit but isn't that what many people are pushing Bitcoin for too? Early Bitcoin adopters are looking for the big payday when the value skyrockets. Somehow that's more honorable with Bitcoin?

Its not a question of honor, at least for me.

Anyone can vote with their pocketbook.  I vote for Bitcoin.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

I understand your frustration with the government, but the truth is simple - bigger stars need stronger confinement field, they often shine the brightest though.

Anonymity might be a good way out for those feeling that the confinement field is about to crunch under its own weight, though a new type of fuel (Bitcoin) might give it a chance to rebalance and reevaluate the course it is headed.

I don't have frustration with the government. I will win or die. I am frustrated with readers who don't read and study.

As I said, you still haven't studied the Knowledge Age links I provided upthread, so that is why you are still far in left field and making statements about dinosaurs.

The large monoliths are going away. Poof be gone!

Anonymity is how we make it so, by enabling the knowledge workers to take over and not be extorted by the govt+corps.

The only question is do you get crushed while they try to fight their decline. Without anonymity you will be stomped.

It is time to decide which side of the fence you want to be on, with the dinasours (the old world model of State+Corporations+Democracy+Resource Scarcity) or the fledgling Knowledge Age (knowledge is capital, it can't be financed, it can't be sold, it is inherently individual and decentralized). Read the "Economic Devastation" thread. Read the essays I wrote which are linked at the top of that thread. Read the "Dark Enlightment" thread.

I don't have time to explain it all over again. I have written it all several times over on these forums. You have the option to read the links I provided and bring yourself up-to-speed, otherwise we are just talking past each other.

It's nice to be perceived young (to some degree I still am), thanks!

Compliment intended.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Anyone can vote with their pocketbook.  I vote for Bitcoin.

Every person is entitled to watch their pocketbook rise or decline in relative value. I fully acknowledge you must decide based on your knowledge. I try to impart knowledge (as well learn from others) but I can't force it down anyone's throat.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

My idea on how to do the programmable block chain.

Hope it is not too late to get some feedback on my thoughts.

My take away from the upthread is consistent with my own analysis—centralization of pools is probably positively correlated with required computation (above some threshold).

The Ethereum applications seem important and reasonably decentralized.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#applications

So pray tell me why it isn't superior to have merge-mined chains for new contract types (as we think of them) and optimize those chains rather than a generalized VM on one block chain?

Advantages are:

• Centralization is granular per contract type.
• Mining participation is optional, thus chains can compete instead of the swallowing the universe entropy(state) = O(∞)
• Failure modes are more contained.
• Incremental development and optimization.
• Market-based instead of top-down metrics (e.g. Ethereum's gas fees) as chains compete to reward miners.

Etc.

Maybe we need to make the process of starting and publicizing a merge-mined chain easier? Do we need an app store of merged-mined chains?

P.S. Apologies in advance if one post can evaporate a $36 million market cap.

Edit: even if you did want a generalized VM for those contracts which don't have enough economy-of-scale to be their own merge-mined chain, you could make that chain merged-mined. You could make variants and let the market decide which one is the winner. Perhaps Ethereum should do this, if they are not satisfied with the Bitcoin mining structure.

[turvarya]

Are you really too stupid to distinguish between democracy and socialism?

You are too stupid to understand the model Eric (and myself and anarchists have) explained is that democracy and socialism (and any form of State collectivism) are the same phenomenon.

I am really amazed by all the flaws in your logic.

Show me the countries, that don't have a welfare system and which are doing so fine, like you said.

Philippines which has been the fastest growing economy in the world. The USA in the 1800s and early 1900s being the fastest growing and most personal freedom economy in the world at that time (before it became laden with government spending on welfare starting with FDR's New Deal).

Both Philippines  and USA  in the 1800s and early 1900s are/were democracies.