Topic: Decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened (Read 1587 times)

you mean like Adam back(CEO) and Greg maxwell(CTO) of Blockstream. Advocating for 4mb bloat, purely to fit signatures and confidential payment codes. to push people into their gateway of sidechains and offchains, while the community cant even get 2mb of traditional transaction capacity.(yep even segwit cant expand capacity to accommodate such capacity requests).
even if some notable devs did have decentralized morals at one point multiple years ago. they are now under employment contracts and NDA's so they cannot exactly bite the hand that feeds them, and we can no longr think of them as having the same motives of pre-employment as they now have in employment.

yes the spoon fed mantra from core fanboys has lots of hypocrisy, involved.

though i do agree that regulations should exist only for businesses on the outside layers of bitcoin(fiat touching gateways). but that is why im highly against businesses getting too "handsy" and to involved with swaying the direction of bitcoin by paying dev's.

to me this is a no brainer, the entire point of crypto is to be decentralized, even if it gets mass adopted, if its controlled by one entity whats the point?

No your comment is not right!
As long as the network stays decentralized, the possibility for regulation only exists for companies who have built their service on top of Bitcoin and have their residence in those countries where regulations got issued.
No one can hinder me to use an open source, free in the internet downloadable wallet with that I can send as much Bitcoin as I want around the globe without the need of AML/KYC.

And this is the reason why Bitcoin will stay decentralized, no matter how hard some stupid CEOs are yelling to make bigger blocks just to create an artifical gateway which is in their favour.

core concept appeared in 2013, and meandered away from an open platform for anyone to join and turned into a REKT campaign to push people out that didnt follow a single minded direction of a few paid devs.

satoshi disapeared in 2011.

core and satoshi have no ties

So many vote for decentralized but slow adoption. We know the core concept of bitcoin is decentralized, it is the Satoshi Nakamoto's initial idea, so this option is the initiality of bitcoin. Actually slow adoption is better because we can buy chea[er bitcoin for enough time.

though core is trying to centralize bitcoin by being the sole controller of rule changes and treating any other implementations attempt to add new features as "an altcoin"..

lets instead deal with the other point of this topic..
mass adoption..

knowing Euro is mainstream but you cant buy anything in america with it.. even when euro's are used by more people(in europe) vs americas population combined.
knowing the pound is mainstream but only used by 70million people, which is only 1% of the world
knowing Chinese Yuan is used by a billion people (3 times american population)..
knowing that bitcoin has no borders. so there is no point in the idea of a bitcoin 'country'.

what would people rationally describe as a realistic and achievable scenario that would be defined as the point where bitcoin is "mainstream"
the only answer i can see most centralized/price rising/mass adoption now wannabe's will say is some magic number that is a FIAT value(facepalm)  twice or more times higher then the price they bought it at or twice or more times higher then the price bitcoin is now..

afterall.. a couple years ago the fiat loving centralizing mass adoption advocates said that $1000 was the magic number.. now its $2000-$600,000

what metric would anyone use to consider bitcoin mainstream?
population of users? .. if so how would you measure it
merchant acceptance?.. if so how would you measure it
value of bitcoin?

some people thing the mainstream peak is when media talk positively about bitcoin

Mass adoption will be nice, but I am not going to support another centralized network to achieve that goal. You cannot run, before you

learned how to walk. We can keep things decentralized and still learn to run. The internet walked and now it's running.. The price

watchers / speculators will not agree with this slow process, but they are only in this for the short term profits. 

Personally I think we need to find some middle ground. Fighting the system doesn't really make sense because people are the system, you all are the system so it's like fighting yourself. No regulation and user verification equate to more crime, it would be harder to apprehend criminals. Is this something that is acceptable? In return for what? Does decentralization really mean freedom?

I choose the first option.Bitcoin should be independent from governments and bank control

even with slow adoption.

If bitcoin becomes more centralized,this won`t be bitcoin anymore,it will be shitcoin.

and i ask all those thinking the debate is just about what "team" to trust.

will you be ok with a core team release of 2mb.. or be part of the rekt campaign to push that implementation into obscurity due to it not being a blockstream domination plan.

again worded differently though, by being done by the team you love. will you then finally accept it as a option the community should happily download. or reject it due to fear of core losing central control by offering a feature that other implementations already offer, making core on a level playing field with other implementations by allowing the community true freedom of choice without bias..

as always for core fanboys, its never about the code, never about the feature. its all about core controlling the decisions to centralize bitcoin

You are overcompensating things. People choose to run the Core software, this means they like the developer team and how they get things done.
Everyone is free to try to improve the software, but of course it needs to go under revision by experts, as you have been told, if we let every idiot out there push their code into the project it would be a disaster, specially when there are tons of trolls trying to ruin Bitcoin out there.

Better to see bitcoin decentralized and remain anonymous till it survives or forever. Current adoption level is even enough to hold high price for bitcoin and as bitcoin is listed in trading platform many traders are actively buying bitcoin to hold for future. Adoption will surely increase in future, no need of any bank or company buying bitcoin for quick adoption.

i don't agree with the start of your post.
in my opinion making bitcoin legal or in other words regulations doesn't mean bitcoin is becoming centralized. we are all living in a society so we all have to obey the rules even if they are not to our liking like paying taxes but that doesn't make it centralized by any means.


decentralization is one of the best features of bitcoin and if it is lost/removed then a big part of bitcoin is lost. so a decentralized and slow adoption is a lot better.

You're already having the answer because everything is your mentioned is having the advantages and disadvantages... and so all of the answers will be vague for me.... but what about the subject of your question if this is about bitcoin and if that is centralized and that's not different with fiat and what the people is need for making bitcoin in this day?

If you don't know that you're probably wrong here. Bitcoin without decentralization is the same like fiat using Paypal. Bitcoin's value is destroyed in the process.

I also don't understand why you think that mass adoption rules out decentralization. Please explain.

It makes me sad to see an ever increasing number of Bitcoin users pouring into this forum, who are solely focusing on Bitcoin fiat price valuation and mass adoption without caring about Bitcoin's essential property as a decentralized currency. Such people are apparently clueless of why Bitcoin has value at all. In my opinion these people can not be considered true Bitcoiners, they are just fiat scam money speculators. I don't mind if they leave, because they are perverting the original idea behind Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

If it's centralized, there's no benefit over the banks, and it wouldn't matter if it's mass adopted, because they would still rob you blind.

The biggest strength of bitcoin is the fact that it's decentralized. If you take that away, bitcoin is worthless.

I am concerned with mass adoption right now.  I think if that would happen, it may burn it out.  If it is adopted through out the world, then there will be regulations put in place to protect as our government sees fit.  For this, I am sure they will want some sort of fee, which case I think will start to crash the system as we know it.  Just my opinion.

I completly agree with your words.

It's your bizarrely worded descriptions that led me to believe that it's an independent fork. Maybe if you weren't using massively exaggerated rhetoric to report it, there would be no confusion.

It's pretty obvious that whatever the Core team have discussed in relation to increasing the base size is not happening any time soon. You're trying to create a false equivalency: doubling the base block size in 2018 is not the same as doing it 2015, as you foolishly advocated. Give it up, you're more interested in me and what I think than you are in progress in Bitcoin, it seems.

gmaxwell mentioned it (your best bud)
luke himself mentioned it
mining pools mentioned it
adam back (another friend of yours) mentioned it

they all had a few meetups and stuff to discuss it. (many round tables)
so its not secret knowledge. its just you want to fail at pretending you dont know so you can avoid answering, yet over many months you have been very vocal about the details to show you do actually know about it.

so grow some balls..
will you rekt luke when he releases the 2mb code? again remember its CORE CODE, not independent code.

will you defend luke JR and say he is part of core and the code is vetted by the team.. so its acceptable
or will you REKT luke..

im presuming you will REKT luke because you accidentally tarnished core code made by core team member as "independent".. oops you slipped up and revealed your mindset.

Franky, the very fact that you are, and have always been, the sole source of this information about Luke-jr wanting to start an independent fork of Bitcoin makes me suspicious. It can't be as significant as you're projecting it as if it's just not surfacing anywhere except in your posts. You're the only one shouting about it at the top of your voice, and you're not very reliable.

Not only that, but you only ever feel the need to beat me with this particular stick. It smells strongly of your story-twisting personal attack tactics.

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code he will release?
just like you REKT others who released code with the same rule..

come on grow some balls and answer.
unless you fear your answer destroys your rhetoric of the "trust of core team" and reveals its the centralization control that your actually advocating

Listen, you've been rambling on about "Luke-jr's fork this" and "Luke-jr's fork that" for months, and no-one knows what your talking about, even now. Spare us the incoherent explanation, I'm not sure I can brave it for the umpteenth time

(you do realise that I only skim-read your posts, don't you? I am abundantly aware that you practically commit my posts to memory )

bitcoin is not a house. bitcoin is a land. and everyone on the land should have equal voice to come to a majority to decide the rules of the land. and then they can decide if they want a pink, blue or orange house to live on while following the rules of the majority everyone decided on.

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code?
edit, will you kick lukeJR out your leaders house?

No, you're advocating the equivalent of kicking in the door to an someone elses house, moving your preferred householders into the house, crowing "free-market competition, bitches!"

you think its a war.
because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community.

edit:
Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the "segwit or fuck off to an altcoin"(hoping they join you on monero), unless you want to roll out that "core is king" canard

by the way.. luke JR is releasing a 2mb version of core
will you accept that a core team has 2mb code.. or shun luke JR in a REKT campaign? and shout doomsdays to tell people not to download it? even if a core team wrote it?

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code?

It's hard to be complete decentralized. Just look recent ETH drama.

I think its better to have slow adoption and decentralization. However i don't think country trying to adopt bitcoin and regulate its exchanges makes bitcoin centralized because if you don't reveal that you own this much bitcoin than even those authority couldn't calculate how much tax they should collect from you. If you don't exchange those bitcoin for fiat than you can do normal anonymous, decentralized and tax free transaction with bitcoin like before.

Adoption over bitcoin will surely come in future and for sure adoption will be in slower rate, bitcoin is supported by large community and citizens will surely use it even when government try to stop its uses in their country.

Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again

art of war!
opposite to the art of peace and community and agreement

after all bankers know how money creation works.. lets leave our finances managed and controlled by bankers.. lets let them choose negative interest rates and freezing accounts, lets continue letting a single group decide everything for us.

This is a very Sun Tzu thing to do, in The Art of War Sun Tzu recommends that politicians stay away and let the generals take the decisions related to war. We must let the engineers take the decisions they are the ones that know what they are doing.

one rule runs..
based on the consensus agreement of the majority (activation parameter of a high majority)
where the consensus is not reach by biased belief of which team is best. but by what rule is best because ALL TEAMS have a version to allow free unbiased choose of the rules they want without worrying about the team.

EG core fanboys can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading a core version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core.
EG non core fans can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinknot with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot.
EG non core fan can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinj version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj.

---

EG core fanboys can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading a core version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core.
EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinknot version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot.
EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinj version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj.

Ok, you can't really expect me to believe that you understood 5 minutes ago that more than one set of rules can't operate at once, and now you're pretending as if that particular logic has been disappeared using your magic sentence? Um, not sure what to say exactly. Keep taking the tablets?

its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option

but hey screw bitcoin, you can just go play with your monero, right?

No that's idiotic. You cannot expect computer illiterates to make good choices about engineering decisions for a cutting edge peer to peer network. They will make foolish decisions sooner or later, like electorates typically do.

It's far better to let the crypto coding teams work without interference, and then the public can pick which cryptocoin is exhibiting the best perfromance in the real world, after the decisions have been made. If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

there will be one set of rules running at once.. but allowing nodes to flag if they want something new.
and consensus deciding if the rule should change

EG
if core had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if bitknots had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if BU had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if classic had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if XT had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if BITCOINJ had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.

then its upto the users to decide with no biases
EG some core fanboys love core the team, but want 2mb capacity instead of 1mb
EG some non-core fanboys hate core the team, but want segwit..

then bitcoin wont care which GUI signalled a majority.. because they all released a version that the majority can happily choose

both people can use the GUI(team) they like, while also having the level playing field and no control over who gets to set/control the rules

we shouldnt be at a point where core slips in a soft rule change requiring no nodes to upgrade to activate.. and then saying people need to run only core to be fully validating nodes or be left as out of date nodes not validating segwit signatures (no longer full nodes)

Yes Franky, except it's IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one set of rules running at once, in any system. Duhhhhhhhhh. Because different sets of rules will CONFLICT with one another. Duuuuuuuuh. There can be only one set of rules at once. It's plain and simple logic.

we are already developed so much and bitcoin is already so cool and perfect but many people have many diffrent opinions with the btc so it is not getting exacyly to a point that what will be the best option and according to me i like slow adoption as bcause everyone knows actully what they are using

your statement is about the social choice of GUI, and or the chances of bugs.

im talking about the decisions of the rules..
NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision

you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI

I still don't get how Core is centralized. Again, people are freely choosing to use their software instead of Classic/XT or whatever it's out there nowadays, to validate transactions. People is free to use other software, the majority wants Core because they are the best developers, is that simple.

I chose decentralized as well. If bitcoin became centralized, then it would be easy to corrupt and pervert it to the point that it would be as worthless as fiat is. The day bitcoin becomes centralized will be the day I look for something else that is decentralized to abandon it for.

Decentralized is the key word. We cannot take it other way, it doesn't matter how much time adoption will take.

Faster things are brought in the faster they usually die or miss some glaring red flags that get exploited to death.
Would rather see slow adoption but I am not to keen on handing aspects of bitcoin to any government to regulate and tax.
So slower the better and would rather run bitcoin into uncharted waters than stifle and snuff it out with greedy banks sticking their fingers in the pot.

lol delaying freedom of choice with words like year development and year grace period.. is not cautious security.. but delay/avoidance tactic to then push through their own rules that doesnt even need 6000 nodes to upgrade/consent to, and activated in under a year

analogy:
"we dont want to get into a car to go to the shop, so we think it will take 2 days to walk it and avoid car crashes.. but we want to invent a motorbike with an invisible side-car and will get to the shops in one day"

core is centralized. (even you admit they are a powerful team)
core is centralized. (a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers doesnt make them decentralized)

much like UK parliament where 650 MP's live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
much like US government where senators live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
but core has become the prime minister/president that can sway the debate in their direction, veto and disregard.

in short..
if your are defending the power a group has about the rules.. its not decentralized.
every group should be on the same level in regards to the consensus

as for the social preference of which implementation. then that is not about the rules, but about the function, speed, errors, GUI interface and openness of each team. (total different argument to the consensus mechanism)

The choice is very easy for me,I voted decentralized of course and I don't care how slow the adoption will be.Anything else is against Bitcoin philosophy,If one day Bitcoin becomes centralized then it will die for sure and everyone who uses it will abandon it and move to another cryptocurrency.
 

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

thanks to blythe masters for helping out the bank of england and bank of india with their next generation RTGS platform,
the centralised faster payment service based on cryptocurrency technology is now covered for the mass adoption category of this topic
(there is sarcasm in the thanks)

lets keep bitcoin as an alternative/opposing option to the way of the banks, where there are no barriers to entry.
lets keep it decentralized and lets keep it doing what its supposed to.
it takes time to teach people the difference between money(subcategory of currency that is centrally controlled) and currency(individually valued and traded), so logically it will be a slow adoption process.

even with slow adoption, we still need to increase the capacity buffer to accommodate a growing adoption,without trying to delay such growth to stifle bitcoins utility.

but those wanting fast adoption only care about fiat. so much so they are willing to centralize bitcoin using middlemen authorisation (multisigs) purely for short term FIAT profit so they can run back to FIAT.

those people dont understand money or understand the real need for bitcoin and if they want fast adoption(purely for profit) then they need to be advised to go play with some penny stocks or an altcoin

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

Edit : I also interested to hear opinion of those who vote "Centralized, but mass adoption happened" and "I don't care"