Topic: Are Profits More Important Than Decentralization? (Read 2481 times)

Decentralization is more important, if it is true decentralization, and there should be a balance between decentralization and profits Satoshi Nakamoto has taught us through his own example.

Have your heard the story of Nimbus dev from Brazil?
After being robbed he had no money to pay for electricity and Internet and had closed his project.
I bet you know nothing about Nimbus. I know almost nothing either and don't hold Nimbus and never had it. I only can imagine how a person, who lives in Brazilian slums, dreams of light and chooses the name Nimbus.
But what if Nimbus could provide something really great in future? We don't know but we are ready to judge.
Nxtblg is correct, be it the First World, the Second, or the Third, people don't differ too much.

The point is that people must have equal chances. "No envy" and "buying rice" are stereotypes.
Talented people often want to change the world for the better. How about equal chances for them?
How many inventions have not been made, how many talented books have not been written only due to centralization of capital.
It's shameful that there are still deaths due to cancer in 21 century. But the truth is that even if somebody could invent a true method to treat cancer, he would not be able to implement it. He would need some money - to live, to research, to test (several years usually), to promote, but people would say to him: 'So you want money? Profits are more important for you? It is shameful, and you don't deserve money, and you are not true scientist, thus your invention is garbage, and we don't want to waste our time to find out more about it'.
That is how this way of thinking works.

That is why true decentralization of economy is not decentralization of mining ONLY (mining and transparency of owners of big mining power do matter, of course).

Actually, Canadian bankers have a tradition of prudence. When times are better, this tradition shows indirectly through all those complaints about "stingy banks" from a lot of Canadians.

In the worst of the Great Depression, when American banks were falling like ninepins, no Canadian bank went under. Even though there was no such thing as a central bank in Canada until 1935, not a single Canadian bank failed in the 1930s.

At the time, this glaring lack of failure was chalked up to size: Canadian banks were big, spread all through Canada, diversified through the Canadians economy, etc.

Nowadays, of course, that same tradition of relative prudence is ascribed to "better regulation" - even through Canada's answer to the Glass-Steagall Act went void as of 1988.

So...us Canucks escaping "The Big One" provides a kind of Rorschach test of the times. Either that, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster has commanded us to give thanks and praise to Regulation...I think it's in the Gospel According to Max Weber.

Well...in the outside First World, it's quite trendy to objectify money and surprisingly easy to judge people through using it - i.e., using it as a standard of judgement. When you think about it, it's historically shocking to see how much of our charitable impulses are channelled through using the Almighty Dollar as a measuring stick.

If you have a taste for satire....

"All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and its Gift to the World: the mighty Socio-Economic Scale! Through it, with it, in it: such is our charity."

"As a man with a cash-register heart, who see things only in dollars and cents, I can say that my heart absolutely bleeds when I see folks with neither dollars nor cents. How can anyone say that the poor are not victims?"

and so on...

I'd add altcoins. I think no posessions here are being criticized more than altcoins.

I've posted recently "True Decentralization is in Diversity" where have described the way of true decentralization and have got no answers, no arguments. Thus I yet don't know whether people fully agree (Qui tacet consentit) or just ignore these ideas.

Unfortunately there is often a lack of real arguments here on Bitcointalk.

Yes we need maney buy rice for famili.

Yes, I think lot of new investors come get attracted to crypto because of profit and there are some people who truly interested in value but until we remove these investors who are in it for profit I think it'll be very hard to focus on value.

We must've lost around 100,000 people because of scams and p&d schemes yet one would wonder why they still exist...people don't learn and greed is a bitch.

Yes and that is what I was referring to because then people would complain because large Bitcoin holders can outvote them. I think this is a good idea though and could be refined a bit, I think this is the first time I've heard someone suggest a solution instead of a problem regarding the Block size debate.

for me i want decentralization in the coin that i am passionate about and planning to use. which is bitcoin. but at the same time, profit has a high priority too.

i think when people stop considering cryptocurrencies as an investment and a way to make a quick buck and start considering it as a currency then the decentralization becomes an important part.

I'm not sure it would be any more painless when it comes to Bitcoin, I imagine you would still have people complaining about the voting and how it is unfair.

If you want an altcoin with a real developer who's trying to solve all the problems of bitcoin with decentralized solutions, look into Vanillacoin

-Can be compiled on any platform, including Windows, MacOS, Android, iOS, game consoles, etc.  No other cryptocurrency can do this.
-Full, staking mobile wallets with transferable wallet.dat
-Only other coin besides BTC to require only 1 confirmation on Poloniex.
-Unlike Bitcoin, Vanillacoin's global transaction pool is highly synchronized, which makes malicious block reorganizations nearly impossible.
-Active dev, most talented I've seen in the altcoin space.

Also, look into upcoming features.

Decentralization is nice, decentralization sounds great, but everybody cares more about their own wallets.
If they cashed in, then decentralization can also come, no problem.

jtb : you're not looking hard enough, certainly not at Nxt.
Bitcoin has almost no native functionality: the only feature it offers is the storage and transfer of secure tokens over its blockchain.
All other tools/features are built by 3rd parties on top of BTC, often using very breakable code.
Take a look at what happened to Counterparty as a result of the recent BTC 'stress test'

Nxt, on the other hand, has been designed from the ground up to offer a wide range of functions integrated into the core, running on Nxts own native blockchain.
The philosophy behind Nxt is pretty much the same as Satoshis original vision for BTC, and does not exclude the use of Bitcoin.
My vision for the future of crypto still has BTC as 'the gold standard', with NXT providing a range of 2nd generation functions, that BTC ítself simply can't.

One of the most important reasons we are here because we want to make some profit.
So profits are more important than decentralization
                                                                               

Most important are promises. If dev makes good promises for coming geek hype tech it's easy to attract investors and dump on them.

What makes you think Bitcoin is still decentralized?

If I wanted to change the world via a decentralized currency, I would participate in Bitcoin, not Nxt or any other altcoin. This is the case of the vast majority. If it wasn't Nxt would be the big crypto, which it isn't. Just because altcoins offer revolutionary ideas, they don't have the tools Bitcoin has.

Good luck preventing "recessions".  That's called the business cycle.  The bailouts were possible because of centralization.

I'm not sure if you ever can have a truly decentralized Cryptocurrency because you need to be able to trust whoever managing the codebase and people naturally want someone to make the decisions for them and provide updates so in any system you will have some kind of centralized authority that would have the final say but that doesn't mean that people do not have a say or have no opinion because you can still have cohesion of ideas. I think you can have a profitable system that is largely decentralized because people want to trade, Stake and sell Coins for profit and you want to have people to continually sell and distribute the Coins because that creates greater decentralization. The problem is not inflation because people will continue to buy Coins as long as the code is advancing, the problem is when inflation grows at a faster rate than investment can ever come in (compounding interest with no cap and interest more than 1000%).

I am quite interested in the subject of decentralization and profitability because it is the main reason why everyone is here.

Actually, no. Canada has bank regulation. Weathered the Recession fine. America LACKED regulation; Recession was triggered due to a LACK of regulation.

Centralization is what allowed the bankers to rob the people via taxpayer bailouts.


Nice rationalization of your motives for copying NXT's decentralized PoS and centralizing it creating Bitshares' DPoS.

Right here folks is how they take away your rights and freedoms.  Take away a little here, give away a little there, and pretty soon you're left with nothing but shackles.