Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 276. (Read 2032248 times)

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

Now you are desperately gainsaying and nitpicking the completely legitimate and highly-informed concerns of the world's largest miners, pools, and exchanges in yet another demonstration of the Gavinesque "rudeness" of which Digcoin CEO Evan Mo spoke:

   

The big Chinese mine, pool, and exchange operators are pounding nail after nail into GavinCoin's coffin with such domination quotes, and you're just blowing them off.  That's not chutzpah, that just being an obstinately ignorant asshole.

Is there any depth to which you will not sink in your clownish jihad against 1MB blocks and the diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient system they engender?

Here's a perfect example of the kind of doublethink coming from the decentralization crowd:

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607009316915191808

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607010068857393152

"the point of decentralization is to give TX confirmation power to as many clueless people as possible."
"300 million ordinary people running full nodes is the goal because they don't get it and don't care. Won't collude."

How many assumptions are baked into those statements?

• The developers/distributors of full nodes are 300 million times more clueful than ordinary humans
• Ordinary humans can not be trusted to make informed decisions, but they can be trusted to listen to the right group of developers
• Decentralization means multiplying by 300 million times the capabilities of a self-selected group of developers who can be trusted to do the right thing, unlike regular clueless humans

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and techno-fascism is decentralization.

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

your Ideas are too convoluted, the total number of miners and nodes expanding and contracting is in response to market conditions and inevitable, I don't buy the idea of a contraction in the number of mining participants or nodes will continue to the point of centralization, able it there is lots that needs optimizing to guarantee it, i think the Nash Equilibrium kicks in at some point and specialization and scales of efficiency balance the network out. 

there are some underlying incentives that maintain the economic conditions necessary to preserve Bitcoin. so long as they are preserved i think we will be fine, the fact that many of the Developers overlook the subtleties and try to control what they see as problematic is a concern and that if anything is the greatest threat i see to Bitcoin.

you have made some good points and i have an idea how you may improve Bitcoin but I cant see it as doomed until i understand the mechanics you seem to find circumvent the existing incentive structure.

so until then, Bitcoin isn't doomed just a risky bet, with odds in favor of my understanding.

Thanks,

I think its more likely that people like you who refused to hedge will get badly burned (conditional on this scenario playing out, and I'm not calling it likely), but many others who did hedge or picked a winner will do extremely well. To observers, the dynamics of greed make the latter narrative far more compelling than the former.

So no I don't really see a few cyperdocs losing money as the death of the concept, it is more like once-dominant Blackberry getting leapfrogged and steamrolled by iPhone and Android. Except of course, as I said earlier, Bitcoin isn't even dominant at all. If Bitcoin gets leapfrogged or fails, the popular perception of that event will be basically non-existent ("What ever happened to that Bitcoin thing we used to hear about?")

Let's just say I'm not necessarily a good example to use for generalizations, in part because I practice aggressive risk management, and also in part because I'm perfectly comfortable financially (I have no desire for a castle), so I don't see the need to take extreme risks.

I don't necessarily sign up for the moon shots (e.g. SpaceShipTwo -- see below). But on the other hand I incur large losses only rarely and always have a bullet left in the chamber when opportunity presents itself, so I've done okay.

i just added you to the list of arsonists.

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

Better blockstream than mit or Google lab rat

dammit marcus, you are a simpleton weasel dickhead coming in here and throwing hand grenades yet refusing to answer/defend your allegations.  i have no idea why iCELatte thinks you're some smart poster b/c all i ever see from you are ad hominems and no substance of debate or theory.

since you won't answer, i will.  they are either financially captured by Blockstream or they are just plain reckless or stupid to have come up with this large miner, large block FUD attack.  either way they did so as to unfairly make Gavin look bad.

shame on you for supporting such a wanky theory and for standing behind devs just b/c you are a dev.

Lel so now bitcoin is no charity.

Nodes arent just miners.

It has nothing to do with their understanding of money.

Micropayments are the only way certain business models could function. There is a huge economy that doesn't happen without micropayments. We will never remove the Sybil attacks on Tor without micropayments.

The generative essence is that the maximization of the division-of-labor trend requires increasing granularity of transactions.

This is an inexorable trend. For example, 1000s of years ago one had to carry around a slap of Iron to make a payment. This required payments to be coalesced supporting the Transaction Cost Theory of the Firm (which is antithetical to the maximum division-of-labor and its End-to-end Principle implication).

The argument against micropayments was the cognitive cost places a lower bound on the transaction size, but this cognitive decision process can be automated for the user. For example, I join a dating site and agree to pay 1 cent per message I send, thus I only make this cognitive decision once for all micropayments I do and this eliminates the need for a CAPTCHA or some other intrusive means of preventing spam (a form of Sybil attack).

It is precisely because of this cognitive load that non-micropayments can't scale to maximum division-of-labor. How many experts can you reason about to pay $100-$1000 each for some service? But let's say you can automate by agreeing to pay 1 cent per research paper accessed then you can preview unlimited experts without cognitive load on each transaction.

Micropayments monetize the Gift Economy of the Knowledge Age. This is what Reddit and Doggie Coin were all about. Without that monetization, the Gift Economy devolves into corporate sponsorship of those with reputation which all that centralized evil of the Transaction Cost Theory of the Corporation.

Wang just made it quite crystal clear there is no way for them to outsource to improve propagation or optimization.  he didn't say that specifically but he doesn't have to.  if there was, they would've done it by now to further decrease any orphaning they're already having as their margins are quite thin.  they are in the Nash Equilibrium.  

the smaller Chinese miner on the dev list the other day said they were outsourcing to Alydan and Linode which improved their connection to 100MB/s but still left them at a disadvantage b/c they are in China.  in other words, the limiting factor is not the size of the miner but the fact that they are in China.  which shoots the hell outta the Blockstream FUD.

it all depends on how well they understand Money.

Blockstream have many conflicts of interest, as the Duck says, Wang is outsourcing block propagation and optimization to someone for good reason, how are we to know that service is not benign provided by Blockstream, and if it is, that would explain why all Blockstream employees are looking to limit the block size.

Gavin doesn't think out-of-the-box in this case and builds a strawman.

Are they inefficient because the design forces them to be.

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding and yes if you have read the 200 pages of SC debate I've argued your point in red until red in the face.

The money won't come in to Bitcoin unless it has no other choice, the economic majority with trillions have yet to invest in crypto wherever that money flows, the network grows, SC will have features that serve the economic majority better than Bitcoin.

I would rather the economic majority bend to the will of Satoshi (screw the developers who don't get it) than have the economic majority create a better crypto by leveraging a SC.  

And you think the millennial generation with all their swiping won't embrace a micropayment per second in their activity.