Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 198. (Read 2032248 times)
Lol, cypherdoc prefers his technical proposals with 120 characters or less (plus celebrities)
I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you. and Adam being another; all over Twitter.
so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message. esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.
The threat of unilateral MikeHearnCoin hardfork was the original act of bad faith. I'm not a twitter user, but I doubt that Adam Back would be addressing anything other than technical arguments with the former XT proponents (I also doubt Gavin would do anything other than to respond in kind). I wouldn't trust your re-telling of this particular tale anyhow.
judge for yourself. don't bother to tell me your conclusion b/c i already know what it will be:
https://twitter.com/adam3us
I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you. and Adam being another; all over Twitter.
so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message. esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.
The threat of unilateral MikeHearnCoin hardfork was the original act of bad faith. I'm not a twitter user, but I doubt that Adam Back would be addressing anything other than technical arguments with the former XT proponents (I also doubt Gavin would do anything other than to respond in kind). I wouldn't trust your re-telling of this particular tale anyhow.
I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you. and Adam being another; all over Twitter.
so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message. esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.
But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds. And most of them are working for a single organization. How is that "hectoring a community"?
It isn't. Who said that?
i still am a vocal proponent. i'm just following Gavin's recommendations after i analyze them. why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
That's a complete comedy of reason. Just stopped taking you even slightly seriously
all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.
You call it decentralised negotiation. I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds. And most of them are working for a single organization. How is that "hectoring a community"?
all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.
i still am a vocal proponent. i'm just following Gavin's recommendations after i analyze them and determine them sound. why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.
You call it decentralised negotiation. I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
One of the nice things about having a 'benevolent dictator' is that it will be much easier to make decisions about these things going forward.
...
My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.
These socialists should be forced to spread their wealth. 'Maybe like a dividend to be distributed to all existing addresses'.
Zikes! You guys make some pretty strong arguments and have convinced me of the error of my ways. Let it be known that I hereby drop my support (however brief) for switching Bitcoin to be under a 'benevolent dictator' and under XT.
Thanks for setting me right guys.
You're saying Mike Hearn was performing an altruistic power grab? That's not so terrible is it? Who wouldn't want one person to control the way their monetary system develops, the sort of person you can rely on to ignore everything that anyone else has to say and override it with a unilateral hard fork, all because that person knows better? What's wrong with Mike, with his superior understanding of what I want for myself, making more of my decisions for me? Why not all of them? He's a smart guy, and there's no way he'd make decisions on my behalf that benefit him.
These arguments have devolved into stupidity. We'll (the majority) just fork mike out of power if he does something stupid. And implying a 21m increase because of an unrelated txn supply increase is a 5yo's logical fallacy.
You guys all need someone/some group in charge so badly that you run home to mamma even when the polled majority clearly wants an increase. But dispute mediation is even more fundamental to how bitcoin works than these other items. Its called open source. Run the rule set you want. My home system WILL easily keep up with 8MB and I support BTC user scalability (I want users in the Philippines to pay in coins) so that's what I'm going to run. Who cares if they (ppl in 2nd or 3rd world or economicly stressed) can't run their own personal copy... especially because 10ppl could pool their resources and do so If you want BTC to be a tool for bankers go ahead and stay on 1MB. In that case the only ppl running a full node will be bankers because they are the only ones who can use the network.
speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?
To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.
And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.
The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.
I think you've misinterpreted my posting... I was basically saying that its better for ppl in 2nd and 3rd world nations to be able to use bitcoin peer-to-peer, even if it has to be via SPV wallets (anchored potentially by a single node funded by a group of people -- not by big-evil-bank) than for txn fees to be so high that bitcoin use is limited to large sum transfers.
EDIT: This whole idea that every single user of bitcoin needs the full txn history on every device is just silly. The system is still decentralized if there are 100 SPV users for 1 node. SPV is still peer-to-peer, albeit slightly less so than full nodes: you hold your own BTC, you sign your own txn, you can in real time choose ANY node to submit the txn to. The key feature to decentralization is permissionless participation. Linux, firefox, emacs, Open/Libre Office development is pretty centralized... but as we saw with emacs and Open/Libre Office if there is an issue, people branch off. The same will be true with bitcoin full nodes -- especially because full nodes have very little power oven the network (miners do). But if some node is misbehaving, the people who care will group together and buy a full node and use that one instead.
all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for Gavin's 20 MB plan, I supported (and still support) XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
It's been fascinating to watch, and it gives me more confidence in Bitcoin's ability to simultaneously adapt to future challenges while keeping true to its original promise.
thank you. Carlton is obsessing about things that aren't there.
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..
increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.
all growth metrics to date, esp tx growth, say you're wrong. large blks will keep tx's cheap and reliable. with entities like Nasdaq, Factom, CP, Overstock, colored coins etc continuing to build service within Bitcoin's mainchain, growth will continue. but these services are dependent on cheap & reliable tx's, which they want. no for profit core dev company can stop that.
how would you link tx growth (and other metrics?!) to adoption rate?
whilst it may have been a good indicator in the early days, it is now more diffused with hundred of companies sending thousands of transactions.
+ just look at bitpay: http://uk.businessinsider.com/30-million-bitcoin-startup-bitpays-backup-plan-sell-tech-to-the-banks-2015-6?IR=T
"But Bitpay has a big problem — ordinary people aren't paying with Bitcoin."
they are now reduced to pitch freakin banks!
i mean i thought one of bitcoin's main innovation was to avoid banksters..
i view that article differently than you.
it's expected in the early adoption phase of Bitcoin for speculators/investors to hoard their coin. which is now. Bitpay is merely satisfying the newly found interest of banks to adopt Bitcoin. nothing wrong with that. the banks can help us build out Bitcoin as long as the core fundamentals remain the same; fixed 21M supply with decentralization. as growth occurs and price rises, early adopters disgorge their coin. just like Steve Jobs disgorged his Apple stock and options as they grew.
all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
It's been fascinating to watch, and it gives me more confidence in Bitcoin's ability to simultaneously adapt to future challenges while keeping true to its original promise.
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..
increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.
all growth metrics to date, esp tx growth, say you're wrong. large blks will keep tx's cheap and reliable. with entities like Nasdaq, Factom, CP, Overstock, colored coins etc continuing to build service within Bitcoin's mainchain, growth will continue. but these services are dependent on cheap & reliable tx's, which they want. no for profit core dev company can stop that.
how would you link tx growth (and other metrics?!) to adoption rate?
whilst it may have been a good indicator in the early days, it is now more diffused with hundreds of companies sending thousands of transactions.
+ just look at bitpay: http://uk.businessinsider.com/30-million-bitcoin-startup-bitpays-backup-plan-sell-tech-to-the-banks-2015-6?IR=T
"But Bitpay has a big problem — ordinary people aren't paying with Bitcoin."
they are now reduced to pitch freakin banks!
i mean i thought one of bitcoin's main disruption was to avoid banksters..
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
You're talking to yourself. I actually make an attempt to address the things you've said when I reply to you, whereas you've invented positions that I haven't even made on my behalf, which serve as the entire basis of your reply. Conversations are a two way street. Again, are you an actual adult? This is not rhetoric, I want an answer to this question.
large miner, large block attack unlikely:
https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation
https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..
increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.
all growth metrics to date, esp tx growth, say you're wrong. large blks will keep tx's cheap and reliable. with entities like Nasdaq, Factom, CP, Overstock, colored coins etc continuing to build service within Bitcoin's mainchain, growth will continue. but these services are dependent on cheap & reliable tx's, which they want. no for profit core dev company can stop that.
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..
increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!
You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.
nodes are important. i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.
i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim. user growth will grow node growth. also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes. there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric: nodes.
if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that? answer: none. and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.
what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?
if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that? answer: none. and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.
what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?
Users is the wrong metric too. Paypal has an enormous number of users. Conventional banking has even more.
Bitcoin has to remain (or arguably return to a state of being) decentralized in a meaningful way and also get users, or it is just a waste of time. The metric has to be both.
Jump to: