Topic: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? - page 4. (Read 2722 times)

@anunimint
Hodling one Million bitcoins  does not make you wealthy. You can not buy a tower from Trump using your coins and it is not because of SEC or IRS (Trump would figure it out), because Trump won't accept btc and you can not dump your coins in Coinbase crashing the market and your assets.

This "market cap" index is just an index, we are fooling people with it to sell our coins, not to fool ourselves  

So, your assumption about power law distribution of coins and its resembling of the distribution of wealth in the society is false.

If such an anti-segwit fork or back trace might happen, it won't be the coin owners' choice to appreciate which chain more, it would be Trump's (and his billionaire paws') choice.

Bitcoin is not an established currency (or global reserve) it is just bitcoin, it needs appreciation by people who mostly are out of the ecosystem and are freshly joining.

Even for an established currency, one can not deduct distribution curve of wealth from distribution curve of money. Money is a device for mechanization of wealth and not the wealth itself.

I think your suggestion about BIG coin hodlers being able to dictate their conspiracy to the society is terribly wrong and you should reconsider.

In a way he's right (a soft fork is still a fork), but that's not what matters. People don't care about the purity of technical details, they care about the utility of the coin (and thence the capabilities that the technical details give them when using the coin). It doesn't matter if Bitcoin is a fork of it's former self, forks that are considered to improve the coin can expect to be welcomed, whereas forks that make the coin worse (such as Anonymint is suggesting) are not. The alternative is to cancel a currency's development every time a fork is required to make progress or fix a bug, and start a new coin from scratch including the new idea. That's obviously untenable.

anyway, you're making him angry now (and there's no progress, there was never any chance of a productive dialogue anyway). It should be pretty clear by now that Anonymint is simply exploiting the mechanics of the soft fork concept for the sake of a FUD based argument, and you can't do much better than demonstrating just that alone in these circumstances

And you can keep exhaustively explaining it wrong all you like, but no one is going to agree with you.

The market decides what the extant protocol is.  Not you, not the 0.5.4 users.

It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up.  If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.  No amount of egotistical belligerence is going to change that.  No amount of calling it "Satoshi’s client" is going to change that.  If pigs fly and this attack happens, I fully welcome your "I-told-you-so".  Until then, give it a rest already.



You started this Thiefcoin discussion, you can stop any time you wish.  If you keep posting lunacy then you prompt us to reply and tell you why what you're saying is lunacy.  Ball's in your court, feel free to leave any time.

Yes yes Segwit can be reversed but only for the TRB fork, chain split, that does not follow the rules enforced by 80% of total nodes in the network that are Segwit compatible.TRB will be in its own blockchain where miners can steal coins in Segwit addresses and wipe out the Lightning channels. We already get it. Good luck to that fork. I hope that the market and the users will value it more than Bitcoin so you can leave in peace.

Again you're changing your argument

This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not. In fact, the same would be true of Segwit too.

And most importantly block rewards will all invariably be tainted with such outputs, the fees will very likely always have P2SH or Segwit history (and are an inextricable part of the block subsidy output). Remind us why miners are going to back this "attack" lol


Honestly, it's impossible you really believe this, and with your long long long history of trolling Bitcointalk... but of course I don't expect the effluent to stop flowing lol

market decide. not wealthy, no governaments. Glod is actually useless it have no value as you can not use it to buy stuff. Glold have value only because the alternative is fiat(worst).
When wealthy will dump all their segwit coin they will lose them, I will buy all for cheap and I will be the new wealthy imperor :-P
Show me a way to implement a trustless 2nd layer using trb and I will give it a chance. But no second layer means gold or segwit coins are better currencies and store of value so market will go that way.
 

If the top 20% think it's in their best interests to leave the actual economy and have 100% of nothing, best of luck to 'em.  Again, a small number of wealthy elites does not constitute a functional economy.  If they want to live in an isolated, incompatible bubble with no one else in it, their system won't work, simply because it's built on the backs of the less wealthy.  The reason they became millionaires and billionaires in the first place is because money flows to the top of the pyramid.  It can't do that if the masses are using different money.  The wealthy need the proles to feed off.  They always have and always will.  That's how social class structure works.  There is no denying this fact.

The middle class will love you for it, though.  They'll be the new top of the food chain if you want to Darwin-award yourself onto the endangered species list through sheer abject stupidity.  Be my guest and do it now.  Sooner the better.





Nope, I'll just lose some of my 0.5.4 worthless Thiefcoins.  Just like I'd lose some of my coins on that proposed fork where they decided that coins that haven't moved in 3+ years go back into circulation.  It's not Bitcoin, so IDGAF.  Again, it's not an economic majority if you can't actually maintain an economy.  Enjoy your 100% of zero.



//EDIT:  Also, you better tell the 0.5.4 maintainers they've probably got some work to do.  Guess it'll be 0.5.5 now?

You're actually shitting up the Wall Observer thread with this nonsense too?  You've got some brass, I'll give you that.  No clue, mind, but definitely some brass.

And thank you for linking in HairyMaclairy's more compelling argument.  Troll or not, it demonstrates how far gone you really are.  Ultimately, whatever FUD you might spread about ANYONECANSPEND, none of it applies in the real world unless you completely disregard the alignment of incentives (or come up with your own warped interpretation of it).



Yeah, great, "miners can take these".  We get it.  Now pay attention for once.  I could theoretically fork tomorrow with a version of "Bitcoin" that lets me steal any and all transaction types.  According to you, the Schelling Point would be overwhelming (I'd start calling it the "Shelby Point", because it clearly isn't a Shelling Point, but I suspect your colossal ego would enjoy that).  Look at all that booty.  All ~17 million coins in circulation and they're all mine.  I can take these.  That means I'm the new wealthy elite now.  I've made sure it's "immutable" now that I've stolen it, too.  No more SegWit.  So... what's the reason you're going to provide me with that you or anyone else should follow my chain, where I've stolen all the money?  Who's going to legitimise this chain by running this code?  Who's going to mine this coin?    

Since I know you won't be able to provide an answer for that, let's make it clear that absolutely no one would follow that obscenity of a chain.  Not a single sane and rational person would recognise that as Bitcoin.  I'd be the only one using it.  The only person running the code.  No one apart from me would be mining it.  Which suddenly makes my ~17 million tokens completely worthless.  Equally as worthless as your 0.5.4 tokens would be if anyone was stupid enough to steal SegWit coins.  Which is why it's not going to be worth their time or effort.  You don't actually end up holding tokens that have value or utility.  Which is why it's never going to happen.

A chain is only as "immutable" as consensus permits it to be.  If you break consensus, you also break immutability.  It's just code, after all.  What matters is the people who freely choose to run the code.  If enough of them agree that SegWit coins are immutable, then they're immutable.  They can only be stolen if people run the code that allows them to be stolen.  People would ignore the worthless 0.5.4 chain no matter how many times you call Core the fork and insist your outdated software is the real one.  0.5.4 would be seen as an obscure novelty at best.  Barely even a footnote for the history books.  All the non-crazy people will still have a chain where SegWit coins can't get stolen.

If it's inevitable, please sell all your BTC, assuming you even have any and aren't just here as a pathetic no-coiner troll (which seems far more likely than any Bitcoin doomsday scenario you've ever come up with), for 0.5.4 when it happens.

The reference you've provided, On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward, has nothing against decentralization as a design principle, and yet if it was the case, we wouldn't discuss it in this forum.

My point is, decentralization as an ultimate agenda, is the only thing we have in common in the crypto ecosystem, it is the cause. Without decentralization we have nothing to share and to make a dialog about.

Questioning decentralization's relevance or importance for an alternative monetary system, announcing it an absurd impossible design target, is kinda cheating and turning the table on other players, what losers usually do.

It is fair to ask questions about how and in what degree bitcoin has achieved decentralization and how it can be improved/evolved to reach to a better (more decentralized) state but ideologically challenging the core concept and saying that we are safer in the hands of few elites in the top of the food chain? No! It is not fair. It is cheating in the most ridiculous way a bitcointalk member could ever do it  

Haha, I respect your opinion, and I believe you also respect mine. Plus all I can say to that is "OK" and leave it.


Sorry. This will be the last one before I make a new thread.

point was decentralization is bad, because of this: http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

Methodologically speaking, you are wrong here. Not every argument deserves a dialogue. A dialogue can take place just when compatible discourses are involved.

In this context, saying that bitcoin is doomed to centralization because monopolies and oligarchies are inevitable is just unproductive and useless and we don't need to spend our valuable time to disprove it.

On the contrary, engaging in such a melancholic discussion gives ideas like this a credit that they don't deserve, even if you manage to disprove them.  

Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice.

You can not find solutions if you don't study every problem deeply. But of course this talk is more political than technical. I hope anunymint explained his point of view, and if you think evil, it is not so absurd.
That's an old discussion between capitalists and socialists. Anunymint is talking like a socialist trying to discredit the austrian school. I'm still at an early stage in studying that so I try to not comment about that.
For general culture I will leave a link:
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly


I'm not sure about this, as you say miners talk privately, and I don't think they will like if only Bitmain will keep all the booty.

Again?  

You are mad with me because I didn't reply to your melancholic comments about elites on the top of the food chain and how you feel safe in hands of them because of Nash's equilibrium?  (I'm sure you are kidding about free electricity)

Dude, I just tried not to make you ashamed, in my culture, we don't push on the competitors wounds and weaknesses.
This melancholy with 1% shit, it is your weakness, believe me.

But apparently, you want it, So, here you are:

You think we are fools and you are so smart because you have discovered that wealthy is powerful and can invest more and economy of scale helps it to outperform masses and,... but I think you are not smart enough to understand that it is not a "discovery" for last 200 years or so, this story has been told ever and ever and yet people are fighting and innovating to keep things more balanced and safe.

You think bitcoin is a conspiracy project for centralizing financial system even more and we are a bunch of childs and noobs who are being manipulated by crypto media (the think tank's PR).?

Dude, these ideas are too divergent to be discussed in a crypto forum, don't you get it? Aren't you smart enough to understand your divergence and find a community with a more similar discourse with yours and run your campaign there?

Bitcoin is about decentralization and bitcointalk is a place to discuss how we can achieve this goal. We have hard times and a long road ahead? No worries, we try more and take our shot. Is it that hard to understand?

We have no time to argue with neo-nazists or neo-cons or neo-f*kers, whatever about the inevitability of oligarchism, we are busy building a decentralized world and guess what? We have started from the heart and the blood: banking system and money!

So, try to catch up with the trend and participate in discussions productively or at least don't push people to mock at your ultra right understanding of bitcoin's agenda.

Miners will need a lot of hashrate, or an orphaning war will begin and all of them will lose a lot of money.

Wrong.  You don't matter.  Speck in the wind, remember?  Bitcoin was designed to disrupt the arrogance and folly of the world's banking oligarchs, not create a bunch of new (decidedly psychotic and egomaniacal) banking oligarchs.  The minority do not decide what Bitcoin is and you are evidently very much in the minority here.  

Also, all of this is largely irrelevant anyway, since we're talking about Schrödinger's Thiefcoin.  We won't know you're wrong 'til someone does it and they're never going to.

Oligarchy don't need free users. They only need poor slaves.