Topic: BTC/Seg/BTU Debate: Why I don't mind that miners will take over. - page 2. (Read 1455 times)

crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway. That's the correct thing, because bitcoin is the core currency, it's like the king of the other coins. However, the king is currently struggling and competing for power. And the king is fighting his son to stay in power. The BTC is the king, and BU is the goofy son, the son does not know his father's power and deliberately destroy everything. Of course, BTC never subdued, it has tremendous power and is ready to confront any risk, hardfork will take place, a real fight. I hope BTC will win BU, and everything is back to normal.

Miners always had the power to set the blocksize, it's not some new power they're trying to gain.

They are trying to prevent core from stealing it away from them.

that until it happens it's very bad impact on the users of bitcoin, we will feel disadvantaged, so we just pray that it does not happen

--> Amen.  The REAL REASON is that the bitcoiners are in it for the greater fool game, and want to become immensely rich because they are from an earlier layer of greater fools than the "rest of the world who needs to adopt bitcoin and only bitcoin".  They are in it for the seigniorage, and so they don't want to share the rest of the supply of greater fools with other coins, even if that means that we are stuck with the oldest and most primitive crypto currency design.

If they were for the economic value of bitcoin, namely "enabling commerce where such was not possible/difficult/dangerous/expensive with fiat means", that is "an internet payment system", then they wouldn't mind having competing tech aiming for different niches.  But they are not in it for the currency usage of bitcoin, they are here, sitting on their stash as early adopters, hoping it will go to the moon, and they will be able to retire early on the seigniorage, paid for by the rest of the world of greater fools.

That said, all of the alt coin scene is mostly also a greater-fool game where you hope to get in early, and others will pay much more later for the stuff you got cheap.

Essentially, crypto largely failed as of today.  Its economic value is minuscule, and it is for 99% a greater fool casino.  I'm not saying it is dead, but it is a laboratory that turned into a casino.  In fact, one can mainly study it to see what doesn't work.

I 150% agree with you.  Decentralisation also means no protocol centralisation and chain centralization, but open competition between variants.  Bitcoin is blocking the scene with its first mover de facto monopoly (for the moment).
Competition between modes of crypto payments, between whale configurations", etc..

Decentralisation can mean a lot of different things.  Bitcoin is decentralised - we don't need hundreds of Bitcoin rip offs doing the same thing on another pointless network (or worse, the cryptocurrencies that are quite centralised).  There's no point going on a website and deciding whether to pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH etc when even the more original ones like Monero only make petty modifications to the network which Bitcoin should be able to make if needed anyway through the fact that it's open source.

I do agree that it's good for miners to have the choice - but they don't really, because they know that if there's a hard fork and other people don't support it they'll be mining nothing.  In reality, the economic majority makes the decision as to whether the changes will go through and miners will rightfully be influenced by that majority (which is why, despite Bitmain and others' attempt to manipulate that economic majority with their mining monopolies, Core will continue running Bitcoin).

From Bitcoin Paper by Great Satoshi Nakamoto Himself:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What is there not to like or not to understand? Bitcoin works exactly as intended, miners enforce consensus machanism with their CPU (ASIC devices these days) power. This is Proof-of-Work at its best.

Read the white paper. Is the white paper not relevant today? Should the white paper be re-written to include other consensus mechanisms?

By reading your post carefully the main reason why you dont mind the miners taking over bitcoins and making it cetnralized is the fact that you dont even care about bitcoin. It means that you dont have anything to lose if bitcoin will disappear. But the community has great concerns about bitcoin and that is why it is necessary for us to keep bitcoin decentralized.

There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *with* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.