Topic: Ladies and Gentlemen, Bitcoin is about to be Centralized (Read 6204 times)
Obviously there will be no master key. So any system will rely on self reporting. I'm not sure I have met a bitcoin user who would do that. So that is the end of that idea.
We will see in the future Will there be an official currency, but it seems to me that it will be very difficult to do.
It couldn't possibly be that maybe we don't want to sell? That we realise fiat monopoly money is going to be printed into oblivion and the IOUs will approach near-worthless as time rolls on? That we know they have a laughable security record and cost their customers time, money and effort with each and every fraud the banksters have enabled with their flawed and insecure system.On the other hand, I don't doubt for a second that eventually the authorities will begin knocking on doors. Our hope is they run out of money (or political support) to pay for enforcement troops before they do. Make friends with a cop and get him started on Bitcoin in order to educate them.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
It is not me (and not us collectively)
Who is to tell the miners where their place should be and what the role they should play. It is the concept of money itself which dictates that. As I told already, miners' role is purely utilitarian, and this role is to allow hassle-free flow of money (in this case, Bitcoin). Obviously, the best case would be free-of-charge ping-time transactions, and if this is possible to implement (which seems to be the case) that should get implemented (since this is what the concept of money is about as such). What miners themselves think about this, whether they like it or not, is absolutely inconsequential. The same pertains to the rules which are embedded in the protocol. They are not something which we should think of as something sacred or untouchable
That which you describe is not Bitcoin
Then don't pretend that Bitcoin is money
Since with miners running amok, Bitcoin loses the features which should make it into money (easiness and cheapness of transacting, to name a few). Money should facilitate the exchange and transfer of value not obstruct them, but today we are going away from that farther and farther. As I said it a few times already, high fees and slow confirmations are mostly inconsequential to speculation and profiteering, but this is not what Bitcoin has been conceived for, right?
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
Patenting hardware and make sure the Protocol is biased towards that hardware.
Patenting some 2nd layer solution and position the protocol to be biased towards that solution.
I suppose this is a normal economic game in open protocol development and there is no easy way to clear the fog on this. In the end, users will vote with their money anyway. But I expect these problems in the future. I have no idea if they are here yet.
Those are hypotheses about something hypothetical that might be be possible
.Can you please give an example of how such thing might work?
What kind of both hardware and software you might be able to "patent" that could lead to the assumed situation?
You don't get it, absolutely
First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point
Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this
I couldn't make out what you meant to say, apart from this part
Indeed, profits are the incentive for miners to do their jobs, up to a certain point. But there are a few things which I mentioned but you seem to have failed to notice. First, there is no reason to think that this is the only way to create a decentralized payment system (otherwise known as blockchain), so there is no reason to think either that those who are confirming transactions should (and would) do that for profits only (thus your whole point of communism versus free market becomes irrelevant). And, second, this idea (profit as an incentive to fulfill the purpose) ultimately gets severely in the way of fulfilling that very purpose since miners start to care for profits (in the form of fees) more than for making their job (i.e. confirming transactions)
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
It is not me (and not us collectively)
Who is to tell the miners where their place should be and what the role they should play. It is the concept of money itself which dictates that. As I told already, miners' role is purely utilitarian, and this role is to allow hassle-free flow of money (in this case, Bitcoin). Obviously, the best case would be free-of-charge ping-time transactions, and if this is possible to implement (which seems to be the case) that should get implemented (since this is what the concept of money is about as such). What miners themselves think about this, whether they like it or not, is absolutely inconsequential. The same pertains to the rules which are embedded in the protocol. They are not something which we should think of as something sacred or untouchable
That which you describe is not Bitcoin
Then don't pretend that Bitcoin is money
Since with miners running amok, Bitcoin loses the features which should make it into money (easiness and cheapness of transacting, to name a few). Money should facilitate the exchange and transfer of value not obstruct them, but today we are going away from that farther and farther. As I said it a few times already, high fees and slow confirmations are mostly inconsequential to speculation and profiteering, but this is not what Bitcoin has been conceived for, right?
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
Patenting hardware and make sure the Protocol is biased towards that hardware.
Patenting some 2nd layer solution and position the protocol to be biased towards that solution.
I suppose this is a normal economic game in open protocol development and there is no easy way to clear the fog on this. In the end, users will vote with their money anyway. But I expect these problems in the future. I have no idea if they are here yet.
I've been swimming on those waters since before the turn of the millennium. Other protocols deal with such issues just fine. As will this one.
This time will come once the small groups here start thinking big again as Satoshi wanted them to do.
The game has started, the rules are mostly clear. Every group wants most power and share. Only collusion of some and the latent repulsion forces will make it real big.
This repulsion power has done a great job already.
It has lead us from Singularity Satoshi , 3 people , hackers, libertarian, silk roaders, gamblers, currency looser,...to bankers, inverstors and big mearchants. Good, but not enough yet.
The original code was split into miners, validators, wallets,...?
The next level might split dev teams, implementations, ideas, layers - not enough yet.
As long as security and adoption stays up, we as single buddys can only try shortcutting time or drama inserting. It might be also fine sit back and relax. Our choice...
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
Patenting hardware and make sure the Protocol is biased towards that hardware.
Patenting some 2nd layer solution and position the protocol to be biased towards that solution.
I suppose this is a normal economic game in open protocol development and there is no easy way to clear the fog on this. In the end, users will vote with their money anyway. But I expect these problems in the future. I have no idea if they are here yet.
I've been swimming on those waters since before the turn of the millennium. Other protocols deal with such issues just fine. As will this one.
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
Patenting hardware and make sure the Protocol is biased towards that hardware.
Patenting some 2nd layer solution and position the protocol to be biased towards that solution.
I suppose this is a normal economic game in open protocol development and there is no easy way to clear the fog on this. In the end, users will vote with their money anyway. But I expect these problems in the future. I have no idea if they are here yet.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
It is not me (and not us collectively)
Who is to tell the miners where their place should be and what the role they should play. It is the concept of money itself which dictates that. As I told already, miners' role is purely utilitarian, and this role is to allow hassle-free flow of money (in this case, Bitcoin). Obviously, the best case would be free-of-charge ping-time transactions, and if this is possible to implement (which seems to be the case) that should get implemented (since this is what the concept of money is about as such). What miners themselves think about this, whether they like it or not, is absolutely inconsequential. The same pertains to the rules which are embedded in the protocol. They are not something which we should think of as something sacred or untouchable
That which you describe is not Bitcoin.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
It is not me (and not us collectively)
Who is to tell the miners where their place should be and what the role they should play. It is the concept of money itself which dictates that. As I told already, miners' role is purely utilitarian, and this role is to allow hassle-free flow of money (in this case, Bitcoin). Obviously, the best case would be free-of-charge ping-time transactions, and if this is possible to implement (which seems to be the case) that should get implemented (since this is what the concept of money is about as such). What miners themselves think about this, whether they like it or not, is absolutely inconsequential. The same pertains to the rules which are embedded in the protocol. They are not something which we should think of as something sacred or untouchable
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
There is one thing that outperforms volume though. Patents. I wonder if we will soon find out some inserted Patents in the BTC Protocol.
Kinda hard to patent widespread practice after the fact. Even if one is successful in that perversion of the patent system, it is hard to bring a meaningful patent case against an amorphous open source community.
New stuff (innovations that may become layered upon bitcoin), and stuff inherently centralized (implemented in hardware manufactured by a legal entity) may be a different story. But that ain't the protocol.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products. This was what I meant and this is actually a risk that we face, because the expected value very much outweighs any cost.
As for the rest. I am in agreement. And even patents can be forked.
There is one thing that outperforms volume though. Patents. I wonder if we will soon find out some inserted Patents in the BTC Protocol.
Kinda hard to patent widespread practice after the fact. Even if one is successful in that perversion of the patent system, it is hard to bring a meaningful patent case against an amorphous open source community.
New stuff (innovations that may become layered upon bitcoin), and stuff inherently centralized (implemented in hardware manufactured by a legal entity) may be a different story. But that ain't the protocol.
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.
Really important for bitcoin users and miners and bankers. If you get any link in the whole chain will collapse. That's good. Is a guarantee that all will always agree among themselves and choose the optimal solution. No permit of death or the collapse of bitcoin.
I certainly understand your pains
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
I understand this is possible of course. But it is shortsighted also.
We are playing the long game here and Miners have more stake than anyone else in the success of this. I do not see a clear incentive there. Volume outperforms price manipulation
Obviously, that's not all there's to it
And this is not shortsighted by any means. You again miss a few important details here. The policy which miners have been following as of lately is quite rational from an economic point of view and may in fact be the most optimal one at that (in terms of maximizing profits). They were squeezing maximum profits from fees while Bitcoin had been rising (it made perfect sense) since in the future, with the introduction of SegWit and later Lightning Network, their influence will surely subside. No one will be paying such insane fees if they could transact off-chain. Anyway, shortsighted or not, this in no case can be interpreted as miners promoting Bitcoin usability (what your point is)
The fault of these fees doesn't lie only with the Miners. They were presented with a solution they did not like. They presented another one. Now it's up to stakeholders to vote on that. Seems fair to me
Indeed, that was not their fault
Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be
I certainly understand your pains
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
I understand this is possible of course. But it is shortsighted also.
We are playing the long game here and Miners have more stake than anyone else in the success of this. I do not see a clear incentive there. Volume outperforms price manipulation
Obviously, that's not all there's to it
And this is not shortsighted by any means. You again miss a few important details here. The policy which miners have been following as of lately is quite rational from an economic point of view and may in fact be the most optimal one at that (in terms of maximizing profits). They were squeezing maximum profits from fees while Bitcoin had been rising (it made perfect sense) since in the future, with the introduction of SegWit and later Lightning Network, their influence will surely subside. No one will be paying such insane fees if they could transact off-chain. Anyway, shortsighted or not, this in no case can be interpreted as miners promoting Bitcoin usability (what your point is)
The fault of these fees doesn't lie only with the Miners. They were presented with a solution they did not like. They presented another one. Now it's up to stakeholders to vote on that. Seems fair to me.
I certainly understand your pains
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
I understand this is possible of course. But it is shortsighted also.
We are playing the long game here and Miners have more stake than anyone else in the success of this. I do not see a clear incentive there. Volume outperforms price manipulation
Obviously, that's not all there's to it
And this is not shortsighted by any means. You again miss a few important details here. The policy which miners have been following as of lately is quite rational from an economic point of view and may in fact be the most optimal one at that (in terms of maximizing profits). They were squeezing maximum profits from fees while Bitcoin had been rising (it made perfect sense) since in the future, with the introduction of SegWit and later Lightning Network, their influence will surely subside. No one will be paying such insane fees if they could transact off-chain. Anyway, shortsighted or not, this in no case can be interpreted as miners promoting Bitcoin usability (what your point is)
You don't get it, absolutely
First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point
Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this
I couldn't make out what you meant to say, apart from this part
Indeed, profits are the incentive for miners to do their jobs, up to a certain point. But there are a few things which I mentioned but you seem to have failed to notice. First, there is no reason to think that this is the only way to create a decentralized payment system (otherwise known as blockchain), so there is no reason to think either that those who are confirming transactions should (and would) do that for profits only (thus your whole point of communism versus free market becomes irrelevant). And, second, this idea (profit as an incentive to fulfill the purpose) ultimately gets severely in the way of fulfilling that very purpose since miners start to care for profits (in the form of fees) more than for making their job (i.e. confirming transactions)
Considering the long term, miners are incentivized to promote usability. Their income will be dependent on fees, thus, confirming transactions. It is of no interest to the miner not to confirm transactions. I do not understand this argument whatsoever
I certainly understand your pains
Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it
I understand this is possible of course. But it is shortsighted also.
We are playing the long game here and Miners have more stake than anyone else in the success of this. I do not see a clear incentive there. Volume outperforms price manipulation.
There is one thing that outperforms volume though. Patents. I wonder if we will soon find out some inserted Patents in the BTC Protocol.
Jump to: