in the past it all used to be about the miners, what the miners supported would win, but thats all changing its getting more and more about the market, even a non mineable coin can survive.
truth be told the future will be even further from the miner, even the core dev will tell you themselves that POW was only ever designed to be a short term solution.
PoW, a short term solution? No, that's not what Satoshi envisioned. Why do you get such an odd idea?
then you wont like 20:59
in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7wso yeah not my idea.
This citation does not support your claim that POW was only ever designed to be short term.
In the video, Mike Hearn claims (and hopes) that one day, someone will come up with a better system. He explain what he doesn't like about proof-of-work by observing that it is barely a rough approximation to "one person, one vote".
I find nothing objectionable here. This is purely a statement about technological progress which promotes neither proof-of-stake nor indeed democracy.
i was replying to "Why do you get such an odd idea?" and gave a quote from just one example of a video i'd watched 10 min earlier to back up that even the core devs will backup that pow is not the future direction of bitcoin, and they have no idea what will replace it.
now as for satoshi view it is in all the old crypto newsgroups from before this forum, satoshi was look for a distribution method and went through many until just settling on pow stating on many occasions that that is a shortterm fix, and simple i don't have the time to got through all that too highlight that......so as we say in the daytrading DYOR.
time and time again i make statements from what i heard, read etc from the core team, satoshi, only repeating what i heard and read, and people shoot it down......but i never make this shit up, i just repeat...so i don't need to continually debate it ad nausea......i mean shit people do your own research on what the core team is upto, thinking,doing etc
the lack of research is why these core developers are able to head down such a centralised root for bitcoin.
did you know the core devs don't agree with blockchain voting because they don't want people telling them what to code?
did you know Gavin and its from his own words is increasing the block size even if bitcoin users are against, stating he only has to convince 5 people to do it (thats less people the had to be convinced to go with the banks big bailout.
)...and good ol Mikey wants it too be just ONE!
(note i'm not debating whether or not these are the way to go, just that the cores lack of respect for the grass roots users, which makes in centralised).
now the reason why the core gets away with this shit, and the reason why the shit hits the fan after TBF screws up, reason why people lost money on gox....is because i have to continually cite where i got the info......
i shouldn't have to cite because YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW!
its like on the sharemarket often have people asking me about companies they already invested in
i always reply hell if i invest in a company i even know what the directors dog had for breakfast.
you know two of the reasons i like ltc;
because warren (who've i've trolled, abuse etc on an occasion or 10), has more respect for users then all the smug pseudo banker types in btc core put together.
the LA is a group by the users for the users completely seperate from the devs, while TBA is a group of self interested would be corporate wanker types trying to control the would be
banker wanker types of the btc core.
