Topic: delaying of bitcoin upgrade mean good for altcoins (Read 989 times)

delaying of bitcoin upgrade is give a good impact for almost altcoin since we already seen in market, there are many good movement from altcoin. i think its good for traders in every market because they can make profit with easy and i think we can do it more and more unless there are a dump that suddenly happen like what is happen with ethereum today.

I don't say it is OK for bitcoin.  I say that a crypto currency is designed normally such that there is a decentralized consensus mechanism.  If that mechanism is truly decentralized, then it LOCKS IN the protocol forever.  
This has the advantage that there CANNOT be leadership, and that people using it KNOW that this protocol is going to remain forever what it is. That is a good thing for a monetary belief, that even a single individual is guaranteed that the rules apply for ever.

This is exactly where the split ETC/ETH happened over.  It was "all against one" with the DAO happening.  In a truly decentralized system, that single individual has the guarantee that the rules will apply strictly, and forever.  

In a system with leadership, it will at best be a democracy, that is, where the majority imposes its will on the minority.  As the majority can be manipulated (there are more idiots than smart people out there), this gives a strong lever arm for "leadership" to manipulate majority.  Individuals or minorities have no guarantees of the application of the rules.  The system can be modified in order to harm their advantages.  That is exactly what ETH did: but we saw that there was a split.  The DAO hacker having applied strictly the rules would have been guaranteed to have his advantage in a fully decentralized system.  Because there was "leadership", he couldn't.  But at least, the system broke into two pieces over that.

So the idea of decentralized consensus, which, in a crowd of non-colluding antagonists, can NEVER come to an agreement over change, is that the rules are graved in stone for ever.  That should help the monetary belief: no "leader" is ever going to change the rules to his hand, or even, to the hand of a very large majority.  The rules are what they are.

If a better system of rules comes out, then the idea is simply that people LEAVE the older system and take up the new one.  There's no reason to IMPROVE an existing system.  Let it die.  Because in order to improve it, you have to change it, and then, the rules are not graved in stone any more.  In that case, *anything goes*.  We already have such systems: fiat systems.


Indeed.  But don't try to change your wife.  She is what she is.  If you prefer another one, leave the old one and go for the new one.  But don't have "leadership" to modify her.

Your understanding of decentralization works with our planet, it rotates around the sun and the laws of physics explain why it neither leaves the sun and why it neither crahes into the sun. Perfect balance. Yes, here it works.

You're contradicting yourself.

Yes, but this can't go on forever, something has to happe. From the beginning of time, when that happened, either civilisation or happened. You somehow got rid of the other rivals or forced ( with whatever it implies ) your point of view, by either convincing others by either fear or respect.

Here;Evolution can't be stagnation. What you understand as decentralization and you think it's okay for bitcoin, in reality, it is stagnation. What you just said, evolution, survival of the fittest, doesn't apply.
You don't like your wife anymore ? You either do this: leave, or divorce her. If you struggle for 50 years you may end up killing one another.
What if you're an arab prince and have a harem of 20 women ? By your logic it's okay to fight 24/7 with all of them and them with eachother. Can't work. Won't work.

Decentralization is not egalitarianism.  It means universal antagonism.  Just not getting together, but just trying to rip off one another.  That is, to me, true decentralisation.  No organized structure, just struggle.  Exactly the opposite of leadership.  The thing that made human beings.  Evolution.  Struggle of the fittest.

THAT is exactly decentralization at work, in my mind.  Only antagonists, trying to rip one another off.  True decentralization.  Like in nature, in biological evolution and species interaction.  Nobody in control.  Emergent dynamics from individual antagonist interactions.  No governance, no leadership.  Just antagonism.

I know in an ideal world 1 individual out of 1000 would have 1/1000 of it's decision power or influence or  whatever. But will never happen. Not two individuals in this world of 7 billion are equal. Despite feminism, on average, men and woman aren't equal. It's how things work and it's not in human's power nor nature to change them. It's natural selection at a whole different level. You don't die hunted and eaten alive, but you end up doing shit jobs or whatever.

They don't decide the outcome but they can and will heavily influence it more than they should if it suits them, so it's still a problem. Look at bitcoin; they can influence the income that comes from fees. Even flooded it to drive up the fees.

I'm not saying that prices in a market are immutable if that is what you understood.  But the "powers that move them" are nothing else but antagonists in the market.  Unless there's a cartel, or there's a monopoly, there is no "leadership" in a market that DECIDES upon a price.  And a cartel or a monopoly are what ends decentralization.

I'm not confusing decentralization with "democracy" or "the will of the people" or any of that.  I'm calling decentralization, when none of the antagonists can decide on the outcome, other, than by his own actions, which are purely egoistic.  Hence, no leadership.  But of course, "whale influence".  No problem.  From the moment that there are 3 non-colluding whales, we have a decentralized system.  From the moment they sit together in a room to "make a plan" we have a centralized system.

No, you are an idealist living in non idealistic imperfect world. Your definition of decentralization can never happen, therefore is wrong. Prices set in the market aren't set by"decentralization", but by the powers that move them. We live in a flawed world.

Your definition of decentralization is the most extreme type of decentralization that can never happen. Like the perfect beauty for each individual, the perfect economic system, the perfect governance. We can pick what works best, perfection is just an illusion you're chasing.

Nope.  That is centralized decision taking.  That is government.  Decentralized phenomena are like price setting in a market: no "leader" decides upon the price of an asset.  Nobody has voted for a price.  The price EMERGES because different individual buyers and sellers act according to their own individual calculations.  Their individual acts make that a common price emerges at which the asset finds just as many offer as demand.  THAT is decentralization: no common decision.

A crypto currency is made up by a whole crowd of antagonists, that all want to get the advantage to their side (like buyers and sellers in a market).  They are not a "community".  There is no "community of tooth brush" where there are sellers of tooth brush and buyers of tooth brush.  There are different sellers of tooth brush, in competition and antagony with each other ; there are customers in competition to buy tooth brush.  And a price of tooth brush EMERGES.

The different antagonists involved in a crypto currency would like to rip off one another (like the buyers and the sellers in any other market), but have to settle on a protocol.  They would all like to change the protocol and the block chain to their advantage.  But they can't.  The ONLY thing on which they can settle, is that nobody can change anything.  Immutability.  

Sometimes, there are two groups emerging, and antagonism is not strong enough to have many many different camps.  In that case, a fork can happen, like what happened with ETC/ETH: the only way to significantly change something.

Thing is, if eth doesn't manage to absorb most of bitcoin's value and the value gets burned instead, then all the crypto scene will suffer. And the only one that will survive with a good market cap will be projects with real potential, like ethereum, as king crypto but at lower market cap.

sorry eth is just not the one, you can bickering all you want and i can bickering all i want, i just don't see it going to happen. everything will just go in circle this is the reason why i hardly click on any thread which have more than 10 pages beside at mining section.

edit, talk about mining, i see eth going to dump hard when it turned to pos coin/token.

First of all, an individual miner will not take care of the "common good" if it is not in his own direct advantage: tragedy of the commons.  Second, a miner is usually not invested in the crypto currency, but in his hardware, which has in any case limited duration, and can be used for other coins, although I only see peercoin and namecoin that can be mined with bitcoin hardware.  (is this the reason for their rise ?).

Iamnotback usually has a very rational thinking and he would probably agree with me here ( i criticised him alot so that may not happen lol ).

You are wrong. Decentralized means no one owns it and it's not all hosted in one place, therefore it doesn't depend nor is affected by any one person or few individual decisions. It is affected by the will of majority. Voting is decentralization, DAO was a great example of decentralization and it put the decision in people's hands. Too bad it was poorly executed.
Leadership is also needed, blockchain tech isn't at the stage where it can go forward without leadership. For that to happen it will have to be perfect. It's not and it won't be for the next 2-5 years. You have a really flawed logic.

That's what "decentralized" means.  I know that ethereum isn't, and DASH isn't.  But decentralized is absence of leadership, absence of voting, absence of anything that might "decide" otherwise but to keep things the way they are.  If not, it is not decentralized, there is a hierarchy, there is leadership, and we are in a classical monetary system.

the mechanism are the miners, do you think miners would want to starve itself to death?

At this rate is just a matter of time before people start the real panic and actually move their value to other projects. No one will give a shit that bitcoin was first, it simply can't move forward like this. Too little too late.

Biggest problem for bitcoin is that it doesn't have a real leadership. Curent developers aren't well respected nor very competent or credible, they aren't able to steer the ship forward. And when you have a team of devs that ain't supported, more developers can appear out of nowhere, propose changes and divide the community even further.

Credibility is very important; Look back at the manipulation of chandler and sillbert when they dumped ETH and bought etc for peanuts in an attempt for flippening, hoping the community and then devs would follow; Vitalik simply stated that a vote was casted several times and the result was the same, therefore it was set in stone and they would not follow the price even if it reversed. The result ? Chandler and shillbert's manipulation fell on it's face. This is real leadership, competency, trust.

Edit: my bad, they had the ETC they didn't buy it. So they tried to double their money in a flippening attempt.

No, they thought they were.  They found out that bitcoin is decentralized and has an immutability mechanism.

The only centralization going on in bitcoin, is mining centralization, and these people have no reason to "solve" the issue: the more there is scarcity of transactions, the more fees they obtain.

If bitcoin foundation was the centralized decision taker (like Evan Duffield is in DASH, or Vitalik is in ETH), then segwit would have been adopted already a year ago.