Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 27. (Read 33243 times)

Or the centralized MtGox and Bitfinex heists waiting to profit on the decentralization-minded Bitcoin "investors".


What truth? That you had interactions with the chain that was heisted on MtGox and Bitfinex. (And don't tell me that there is nothing that can by done on chain to prevent losing funds on centralized exchanges, because there is something that can be done but your stupendous Core hasn't apparently realized or proposed it afaik)

The hypocrisy and double-standard reminds me of the arrogance of Core. Are you going to ban me again for posting too much about how China was centralizing mining (yeah I have 1% of all posts on this forum apparently more than you and I even remember you before you became a mod)?


So much for the absolute veracity of relative perspectives huh.


Can you guarantee that? Just like when you mods banned me for posting too much about China's mining cartel.

Sorry for being too outspoken. I better be a good boy now and not try to go against the trend of ignorance. But now finally the n00bs have started to awaken to what I was warning about years ago. I should have known not to try to speak to people who weren't ready to hear. I am learning.

The brow beating pisses people off. Please don't talk down to us (always in discrediting others mode to keep Core up on a untouchable pedastal in the minds of readers). Learn to have a civil dialogue.

My intimate conviction is that BU's only purpose is to stop segwit, not to get activated or whatever.  I would even not be surprised that BU signalling pools actually run core software, but "signal" BU.  If BU was a simple for loop, it would be good enough.  And then you need to tell stories, because saying "we just want to keep small blocks, and have you, users, fight over the 3 transactions  per second we grant you when 4 billion people will have adopted bitcoin and pay their coffee with it in the fee market" was not going to cut it.  So they have to have some mumbo jumbo that they can "solve" the problem of scaling OTHER than segwit, while "solving" the problem is the last thing they want.

So BU must signal a strong adherence that makes any illusion over getting a consensus over segwit without hope, that gets Core out of central protocol control, but far not enough to get BU REALLY activated.  No miner wants big blocks if small blocks make people pay big fees.  But miners can't say that bitcoin will be limited "for ever" to 3 transactions per second and maintain the illusion of armies and armies of greater fools marching in and pumping the price somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn.  So they have to pretend wanting a "simple" solution, that unfortunately, cannot happen "for the moment", because, well, nothing.

I am on exactly the same line as you here.  I was also seriously shocked by the ETH decision, and I sided with ETC, the "truly immutable system".  I still think it is the "right" ethereum ; but, as I said, I realise that the market didn't want that strictness.  


My idea is that that is an impossible notion.  Decentralized and governance don't go together.  I take as a definition of decentralized, that there is no governance, and that everything that happens in the system must be emergent phenomena, and not a rational plan.  For me, decentralisation is the absence of rationality, because when you say, rationality, you say, a plan with an objective, and when you say, a plan with an objective, you say "planned beneficiaries and losers".

I think that the only notion of "the common good" is emergent, and never a plan, because if it is a plan, it is the good of the plan maker at the cost of the non-plan maker.

But there are people who take "decentralized" as something like "democratic".   If you start even the remotest form of democratic leadership, you end up in systems like the ones we live in.  You can think that is fine, or you can hate it.  But fact is, if you allow for "governance" (even with democratic rules), you end up with a hierarchic system, and if that is what you like, then  there's no reason to do something else than use the systems that are in place.  There is no complicated consensus mechanism to be had.  You vote for a trusted central authority, that authority defines the consensus in a transparent way, and is regularly exposed to the renewal, or not, of the trust by the majority.   No hassle, no block chain.  Banks.  Our real world system as of today.



Right.  The only question is how far one should go in this delusion, before it becomes an outright scam.

The more I understand crypto systems, the more I understand that my idea of decentralisation is technically difficult (but not impossible) but is interesting nobody and his cat.  People need illusionary principles, but don't like to adhere to them.

They want to be leaderless, but want governance.  They want to have permissionlessness, but want to be able to exclude the bad guys.  They want trustlessness, on the condition that people are honest.  

This is why I think there's no point in trying to develop truly decentralized systems even though they are technically not impossible: nobody wants them really.


I think bitcoin is fine, but clunky and oldfashioned.  As long as the centralized powers continue to make block chains in which transactions are taken, people will live in the illusion that they are putting their money in the "safest cryptographic system ever, secured by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of computing that no government can take them away", and buy a pair of shoes with bitcoin for fun, twice in their life, and whine about how the children don't use bitcoin.


Yes, we fear them and "we" want them.    We hate them, and they have to solve all our problems.  We vote for them and we find that they are idiots.  

Like with the unstoppable ethereum, until you REALLY learn what it means, you go and whine for the leader to take action and stop the unstoppable, and mute the immutable.

We are like 16-year olds, wanting to be independent and hating our parents, until we have a problem and call for mom and dad.

The only difference is that in many cases, mom and dad really love you, and "leadership" only likes to make you think so.

You sir was brainwashed with their propaganda. An "honest" announced premine is one thing (ICOs, XRP, etc...) but this DASH launch is just straight out scamming and lying.


How the hell can a "core developer" write something like this publicly. Block explorers are for grandmas looking at their transactions, not for devs launching a coin. How does he dare to say that, blaming the absence of a block explorer for the instamine? "Ups, look at all those blocks flying around every second, a shame I dont have a block explorer to check if the network is ok. Oh well, I guess I will just sit here now"

A "core developer" would know exactly how to check the amount of blocks and the money supply. (a simple getinfo rpc call gives you everything you need to know and tailing the debug log)

This claim linked above is obviously a filthy lie to cover up the fact that it was planed in advance to instamine the shit out of that coin.

Sorry for the walls of text, but I want to hit all the points.


So why is BU preaching equilibrium with unlimited blocks as the most prominent item in its FAQ.

Because they want to sustain the illusion of decentralization. Their supporting white paper is meaningless and doesn't model anything that can exist in reality (it models a perfectly uniform distribution of propagation and hashrate where all miners experience the same orphan rate, but if that were the case then no miner would make any profit because in that impossible scenario marginal cost = lowest cost).

Because ETH is implicitly "honest" about the BDFL being Vitalik and that its raison d'être (at least for the current juncture) is ongoing R&D experimentation (or at least that is the geekcool idealism marketing to drag in the greater fools to part them from their money), so it is clear that it is not intended to be immutable at this time. My mistake when I originally sided with ETC was I was projecting my idealism (protocol immutability) on the project, but the project's community has a different priority (also a form of idealism) which is about decentralizing experimentation in blockchain apps.

Thus ETH's overriding mandate isn't "code is the law" and instead is "decentralized community governance" is the law.

In the case of Dash, the governance is alleged to be a farce with Evan Inc. controlling more than a majority of the nodes and even some budget votes quorums don't require all masternodes to participate.


Afair, that phrase appeared verbatim on the DAO website, so the marketing of blockchains has always been about the delusion of idealism obscuring the reality of what we are really achieving and doing.


Yeah the key is "until not". Centralization bites back. Citizens who believed in the Socialist Utopia are finding out the totalitarianism hard way that centralization is a boot on your throat eventually. But let's not get too melodramatic. Why not let Bitcoin be what it can be? It certainly can't have decentralized mining. Core needs to stop fooling us.

After writing the following (the quoted part), I think I may have realized why everyone is so focused on maintaining the illusion of decentralization. Maybe it is because they/we fear governments? Decentralization is what keeps the governments from trying to step in and take national sovereignty over a blockchain.

I think we are trying to find some happy path where we can get scaling while also convince ourselves that we aren't just duplicating Visa and Paypal. At least ETH is doing more than just payment systems!

Also I think we tend to think Core has a better chance of getting Bitcoin into mainstream use. I think we see the mining cartel as a bunch of, well miners. And thus lacking the range of skills to get the code where it needs to be in terms of scaling out payment systems, etc.. Blockstream has seriously well recognized cryptographers and other experts.

This is why ETH is a centralized coin too.

We're not going to go over this again, but remember that ETH was the fork to save the DAO investor's stake, and ETC continued the "unstoppable and immutable" chain in the spirit of the original idea.  Yes, yes, I know, "mistakes, and abusing mistakes is criminal, and lot of important money at stake, and still beta testing" and whatever.  But fact is that ETH was the hard fork, in order to negate the principles of ethereum of unstoppable and immutable because a lot of money was at stake, people had made mistakes, and someone had found them and took the idea of unstoppable and immutable to the extreme by exploiting it, from which a large majority concluded that unstoppable and immutable is OK, unless it is not OK, and ETH was born.  ETC continued as the original chain, with 10% of the hash power, and the market preference.

From the success of ETH over ETC, I learn that bitcoin has nothing to fear from centralization ; the market seems to like centralized things with "official leadership", mimicking as decentralized.  This is why I have good faith in DASH too.

Bitcoin can very well prosper in a centralized way, as long as the centralized cartel, happy with its generous rewards, processes the transactions and keeps up the illusion of bitcoin being decentralized, unstoppable, permissionless and immutable which they think is OK, until not.


This is indeed when the market appreciates much more central leadership than decentralization and the principles that go with it.  It is something to keep in mind in crypto: principles are OK, until they aren't, and big money is at stake.

In addition to the detailed links which @mining1 and @cryptohunter provided upthread detailing the alleged ONGOING "scam", I want to reiterate that evidently (proof has been provided) Evan even reduced the protocol money supply limit by ~75% after the instamine to make it a larger portion of the eventual total, and he refused to restart the mining to correct the instamine even though he had restarted the mining previously for other reasons.

The ONGOING "situation" is described more as follows:

Ponder this:


Point being that the small blocks = decentralization might be an erroneous strawman argument constructed to fool us into thinking we couldn't have larger blocks sooner.

Why is Core trying to fool us? Is it to keep the illusion of decentralization alive? Perhaps some of you who are more intimately familiar with Core's arguments can clue me in. I haven't been following all the wranglings over the past year.

Nodes can be doubled overnight. Hash power could take weeks or months to double. GPUs are a drop in the bucket, and then there's the problem of corralling thousands of disparate users with varying quality of network connection and technical skill. Apples and oranges.

Talented devs can build, but what if nobody comes? Or in this case, a minority?

Different illnesses, same symptoms - concentrated control.

OTOH, that is already mainly the case right now.   So I don't see what would be lost.  You can't lose (any more) what you don't have (any more).

it's not premine lol that is supporting the network if satoshi was not mining who would support the network back then? no one, so he was forced to mine together with other people, bitcoin has no value in 2009, and the diff was 1, that is not premine or instamine at all don't be stupid

So satoshi was mining silently because you heard about bitcoin the first time in 2013? give me a break.
Satoshi released the bitcoin whitepaper and code into the wild on the internet, anyone was free to get involved, but at the beginning nobody cared because bitcoin was worthless and few understood its importance.


I just don't see how it is a "bankster cartel" when you have devs like gmaxwell constantly pushing for anonymity features like confidential transactions, mimblewimble etc, and guarantee that the network remains decentralized by letting the small man have a role by being able to run nodes.


The altcoin market is a gamble right now, so is BTC hard fork happening or not. I believe it will not happen, miners cant be that insane.




Which is another reason why there will be no hardfork. Exchanges will be exposed by lawsuits everywhere after customers see their BTU disappear thanks to buggy incompetent software.


Pretty sure Core devs give 0 fucks about BitFury's crying and whinning. There are huge whales out there invested in BTC that will help them. Also if they are bankster funded pretty sure they got the money to deal with the idiotic concept of a lawsuit over open source software that tries to defend itself from an obvious incoming attack.
About LN being centralized, KYC's etc.. again I fail to see how that's the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF_ZQ_eijPs


Difficulty will look succulent if all of Jihan's hashing power is out, new miners will come in, people will also jump in if they have powerful computers/GPUs and hashrate will self adjust eventually. The incentive is there: better software over BU. Miners can be easily replaced, top software devs can't (as we are seeing).

There are huge differences:
1. Sathoshi started it as a personal project and released it to the public. He didn't promise anything nor tried to hide anything. It was what it was and people accepted it as it was.
2. Vitalik and few others created ethereum, ICO and development funds were official and known, everything was transparent. It is normal to take benefits from the project you create especially if it becomes succesful, nobody works for free. And what he has is worth anything now because ethereum so far is a success ( with setbacks, but nevertheless a success ).
3. Evan duffield is a scammer, because the bug was there, wether it happened to be there intentionnaly or not doesn't matter. Then he promised to fix things but he didn't so he pocketed the money. And the instamined dash represents 30% of total supply which is now used to further increase both in number and value his supply with masternodes and an insane ROI of ~10% per year.

If you cannot see the difference you are either stupid or you're liar because you are too invested in dash.

Like I said before, segwit + LN would bring way more volume of transactions than a blocksize increase under buggy software and a concept that has been proved to be flawed by technologically sound people (EC)

But miners will reject segwit because they want to milk fees as high as possible, yet BUcoin followers want to give them full control over fees. Does not compute. Short-sighted miners will keep stopping anything that means less fees. If they really cared to compete against Paypal and think long term they would enable segwit.


We have already centralized mining. Why would anyone want centralized mining + centralized nodes and in what planet can such a system provide anonymous transactions? And running under insecure software with devs that resort to closed source releases. Get real.

Its a conceivable doomsday scenario of transaction-based centralization, just as governments attacking full nodes is a conceivable doomsday scenario of node-based centralization.

There is only 20 real miners, these are called pools. And there are plenty of people who want to sell their hashrate for bitcoins, or dash, or monero. These care only about income. If some pool propose them a bit more payout for minig on "lets do a 51% attack and kill bitcoin forever" chain - they would do it with pleasure and switch to some other coin after. They already "mine" on litecoin against development and improvements, they don't care about coins at all.

And since we have heavy centralization big blocks are fine too, bitcoin can run with 1gb blocks just fine, average user don't install full node anyway. This is acceptable decision for scaling too. Worst decisions is stagnation or split, and we have both of worst ones at the moment .

Dash had a partial pre-mine. Ethereum had a partial-pre-mine too.

Dash and ETH are equal in that regard.

And Satoshi was mining silently way before I heard about Bitcoin for the 1st time (in 2013). I consider it almost like pre-mine. So I don't care either way.

What people? The speculators just waiting to profit from ETH or the bagholders/developers?

I am a victim of no one but the truth. I have neither traded nor had any interactions with either chain. ETC is the original ETH, and the current ETH is the altcoin as it was a contentious HF also known as 'bailout fork'.

This is one of the biggest jokes I've recently heard. Vitalik is a loon.

Who has been feeding you these kinds of doomsday scenarios for the Core roadmap? In no way will you ever need to 'register with some third party to transact'.

Mining early != insta mining. The latter was done by the DRK scam coin developer(s) && cartel. DASH is one of the biggest pyramid schemes / scam coins that I've even seen in crypto.