Topic: Bitcoin adoption: A technical challenge - page 2. (Read 877 times)

Those 3 things are being addressed, I think. Decentralization is due to many different miners and full nodes, many different devs contributing code. Scaling is being worked on by centralized entities such as off-chain solutions either with third party custodians, exchanges, web wallets, points thingies, token thingies. Privacy, at least on the bitcoin level, is being done by such things as CoinJoin, JoinMarket, Wasabi and all the other privacy tech by other altcoins that supposedly focus on them like Monero and ZCash.

As you implied, these things are being worked on separately (and maybe together) by different groups of people. They'll eventually come together, but understandably some things are prioritized depending on the group or devs working on them. If you're smart, you can take advantage of all three right now.

Cool... on this topic I found very relevant this blog post, in case you want to give it a look:

https://blogchainzoo.com/the-mass-adoption-of-the-blockchain-technology/

Cheers, and let me know!

Rob

You are almost advocating for an undocumented vision of bitcoin which is absolutely paradoxical. Bitcoin is not separable from its mission and its cause.
Without a purpose, there is no bitcoin as a promising technology worth dedicating our lives. A centralized, unscalable, KYC/AML friendly bitcoin is not entitled to carry the label. Such a discourse is contemplating a radically different system than bitcoin, maybe Ripple?

This is the point: Without overcoming technical challenges there will be no infrastructure for sociopolitical campaigns, hence it is the canonical part.

All in all, you're speaking about a "currency" and not a cryptographic element (experiment) anymore. The day since we started comparing BTC to other individual Fiat currencies and started adopting because of its value in USD rather than its actual value i.e.; 1 BTC equals 1 BTC always. Since then, the adoption of BTC is being drifted more towards these qualities while the technical part has been left to a smaller set of Devs who were already involved since the beginning. While considering everything what I said:

Decentralization is never going to take place fully in the world of BTC because we (not me and you maybe, but most likely everyone) need something "highly secure to control our funds", I mean we want something to rely upon so badly that we can even compromise it to an Institution that can provide us with the same. We want Governments to get involved to stop criminal activities (yeah, we are relying over them ) and help us keep the activities clean and as smooth as possible because these authorities have got our back and they're the first to f*ck us as and when we try to save ourselves from disclosing our relations in BTC and paying taxes to them.

While about Scaling, I'm also not in the favor of any forks because forks create diversities in a community which was meant to be unique as well as united forever but that couldn't happen based on the fact that opinions change from person to person. And alts? Kick'em off all of them. They're just doing me one favor - cheaper fees and that's it. Nothing else can they do. Now back to the topic, scaling will also not be easier considering that if you come up with a new idea, the time it'll take to get implemented will already have a lot more traffic involved till then. It's like we try to make the roads bigger and broader from time to time, but during that period, quantity of vehicles won't remain the same and increases to almost double or sometimes even more. I guess scaling is not going to be any easier a topic here to get done till a system to deal with this quantity issue is invented and presented to the community and make them agreed to the same (that will be a different story as LN took a lot of time before everyone understood and adopted it, still it's very complicated).

Until Centralization remains, Privacy is ought to be compromised to various organizations where we will be storing our funds and need to meet their KYC AML obligations before we're able to get a hold on our funds back at many places.

@Wynn1427,

Decentralization is the first key to mass adoption and scaling is the second one. Both are necessary but decentralization comes first because it makes it possible to resist. Actually some believe that there is an axiom of resistance that bitcoin is built on it by Satoshi.

The priority of decentralization was what correctly justified the Core view in scaling debate, you can't naively increase the load on a system by compromising its essential design principle, its purpose and decentralization is such an important and elementary feature for bitcoin. An unscalable but decentralized bitcoin could exist, somehow, but it is not true for the opposite case.

The basic purpose of this project is higher degrees of decentralization rather than scaling the latter comes as a bonus and a surprise once we figure out that the same flaw that is threatening decentralization of bitcoin by pools, is degrading its performance substantially: A bad design choice for Pow, winner-takes-all model.

So, fixing pooling pressure flaw is not just about a better bitcoin as a utility, it is about resistance, the ability of bitcoin to survive despite what govs all around the world and the US government especially do or wish to do. This resistance is at stake right now, and mass adoption is conditioned by the results of this game. Let's win it!

I agree with the USD dominance and leverage aspect. I believe both fiat and cryptocurrency can co-exist for periods of time, but not indefinitely as reserve currencies have only been seen to last somewhat short period in history.

Back on to topic, so your intent is a hierarchical side chain (not sure how this can be a one-way pegged without setting BTC as some backed standard?). Mass adoption would need to happen at least in US at a personal level somehow. If person X trades for something, person Y needs to accept the trade and believe what they received has some value and may choose to exchange it for their future needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). Novel ideas are great but mass adoption is the key (why the need it and cant live without it).

By governments you mean the US authorities, don't you? No? But it is the truth!

Speaking of monetary systems there is just one government in the world, the US government, they do whatever they want with the world economy using their USD dominance as leverage, since World War II, and it is both stupid and impossible to tolerate. Unlike what most people believe bitcoin is not an alternative to fiat currencies, it is an alternative to USD in the first place.

We have nations oppressed by USD right now and the rest of the nations are not completely satisfied by its dominance. The world monetary system needs to be changed and there is no alternative other than bitcoin, it should improve.

The only obstacle to mass adaption is government sabotaging of native scaling. But sooner or later it'll become overcome and we'll say good bye to our dear government.

If you are looking for things that can affect Bitcoin's mass adoption then we have a complete opposite view about it. Mass adoption won't really start without the support of our own governments, two out of the three fields you have mentioned won't really be given by the government namely decentralization and privacy is something is what they are concerned the most mainly because of the crimes and illicit activities revolving around the industry. The mass adoption won't really take place if you just focus on the internal factors you are mentioning about technical development since it's already there and really the only thing missing is to be supported by the government. External factors (governments/lawmakers) are really want you need to start looking for since this literally will be the green light for all the developments happening within in the industry.

To be honest, I don't care about what Satoshi did but AFAIK it was not the case.

I'm aware of this thinking by code thing, not a fan tho, I've tried it, works for small projects and smart hacks, lots of fun but not really applicable in most of the occasions, especially not for pushing an already invented technology to its edges, what we are talking about and desperately need for bitcoin.

Pardon my mistake, sorry. But that gives a better example, because Satoshi had a Proof of Concept, AND a whitepaper to show.

other projects aren't really writing any "whitepaper" though. they have changed the meaning of it too. it is currently used as a way of advertising the useless token they are trying to sell by giving vague information and only false promises. and sometimes even create and solve imaginary problems in one place!
that's 99% of the cases.

As far as I know, Satoshi created software first to check if everything works as expected. Bitcoin whitepater was written by him/her only after the implementation and just before approaching community.

By the way, that process is vise versa to what most of other crypto projects are doing. That may be even a single case. At least, I don't know other examples in crypto when a whitepaper was created only after a software is ready for production.

Then write a whitepaper. Satoshi started Bitcoin from nothing but a whitepaper, because the idea was so convincing and good.


How?


That's actually good. No one is following anyone blindly.

With the current state of minds and the atmosphere taken into account, it is both too soon and resource-intensive, convincing the community, it is time to convince individuals that there is a chance to do something good about bitcoin, show me just one case that anybody has succeeded in
convincing the community about anything, in past few years.

If you want the community to accept, and run your software, then yes you do. Are you telling us that we should trust and follow you blindly?

See? It is your problem. You think I have an obligation to convince "the community" about my ideas being great, it is not true!

As of now, the purpose of this topic is proving the feasibility of a scalable, decentralized secure sidechain for bitcoin, better than bitcoin and denouncing claims about the existence of dilemmas and trilemmas and trade-offs.

It is not about me being or not being smart or possessing great ideas, it is about the feasibility for bitcoin to get mass-adopted. I've presented an outline for such a bitcoin and I'm ready to jump into the details if I find enough reasons for this.

Re-thinking winner-takes-all and designing an alternative PoW model is not a trivial job, it is one of the most sophisticated technologies to approach and more complicated would be presenting it to a community poisoned with false claims and political propaganda.

It is also worth mentioning that I've been presenting crucial parts of my work in this forum in the last couple of years and in some occasions you have been contributing and you just can't pretend not being aware of what I'm talking about.

In one special occasion, you started a topic asking for more information about sharding and I presented you with a very important part of my work; How it is not and should bot be considered a security/scaling trade-off, remember? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49929370

We? No. This is you until you convince the community to follow you. How do we know you're not trolling with Collaborative-POW, blockchain-sharding, and with the other "great" ideas?


Satoshi made a whitepaper, and many other scientists do, to present their ideas.


OK. Would "within 20 years" be a fair estimate?


You have a Proof of Concept, whitepaper? How can we know if we can support it?


Am I wrong to be cycnical with the kind of social-engineering attacks, and trolling within the community?

I'm here to learn, and grow.

I liked the sense of humor 

BTW, I think the scamming part was not a design-purpose from the first day. "They" should have talked to Vitalik's dad and convinced him for the scam, initially it was a trivial "generalization" idea to replace the bitcoin's automata with a Turing-complete machine, a very bad design choice for a consensus-based decentralized system, IMO.

you are confusing "claims" (or advertisement) with "actions". it is very easy to claim to be better and in the eyes of most people it may look better (check top 10 altcoins!) but to actually be better you'll need some innovation and to go in an entirely different direction than bitcoin. in short when you see there is a ton of similarities between bitcoin and another altcoin, there is a good chance they are worse than bitcoin!
why? because they take the idea that works perfectly well with bitcoin and try to adapt it to their own purpose and it doesn't work that way.

it was perfect design choice, you are only mistaken about the purpose. ethereum was never meant to be "universal machine" it was just their advertising technique. the reality was ethereum was a premined coin with a big ICO to make the creators of it millionaires overnight. the design was chosen in that way to give it that short term advantage and hype to get the biggest pumps.
the developers have to be really stupid to not know seconds apart blocks will lead to a bloat of nearly 3 TB blockchain!