macsga, always democracy is a power vacuum. And thus yes the elite will take control of Bitcoin. No doubt in my mind.
The only way I can see to avoid that is to use technological innovation to remove the need for consensus in crypto currency. Such as eliminating the 51% attack vector and enabling users to burn their coins and transfer them to another chain, so that value becomes orthogonal to chain protocol. Soon we will have this technology.
Topic: PnF TA - page 63. (Read 190669 times)
It's cool to read texts like this. There are voices of reason like Charlie Lee's. He gets perfectly what's at stake here; most people of the community don't, though. Consensus protocol is something that -like the friend nakaone posted above- based on general agreement (aka: Democracy). Nobody gets to do what he has in mind without getting the general agreement. People get anxious! They feel abandoned and berated! They think there is a secret agenda here and it's pretty obvious.
WAIT! I don't disagree with it! Government is the killer app of Bitcoin as my friend NewLiberty posted elsewhere. Do they want in? By all means YES! Under one condition: They must follow consensus! What's happening here is the general disagreement towards a single-man addressing of a known problem. It's OK! SOLVE IT! But be kind and let others know, get other's opinion. GET CONSENSUS!
One thing's for sure, I wrote it before but I must post it again. "Every man has his price". We're talking about next gen monetary system here and -at least now- this must be obvious to everybody. FWIW: Even if there's no consensus, even if there are two bitcoin forks, there will STILL remain enough to run the system. TPTB knows this. They just want their control over it. Simple as that.
since this thread is becoming quality thread here in bitcointalk
regarding "consensus" in blocksize debate
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/list/PDF-files/LogicalSpace.pdf
Abstract:
Can we design a perfect democratic decision procedure? Condorcet famously observed that majority rule, our paradigmatic democratic procedure, has some desirable properties, but sometimes produces inconsistent outcomes. Revisiting Condorcet’s insights in light of recent work on the aggregation of judgments, I show that there is a conflict between three initially plausible requirements of democracy: “robustness to pluralism,” “basic majoritarianism,” and “collective rationality.” For all but the simplest collective decision problems, no decision procedure meets these three requirements at once; at most two can be met together. This “democratic trilemma” raises the question of which requirement to give up. Since different answers correspond to different views about what matters most in a democracy, the trilemma suggests a map of the “logical space” in which different conceptions of democracy are located. It also sharpens our thinking about other impossibility problems of social choice and how to avoid them, by capturing a core structure many of these problems have in common. More broadly, it raises the idea of “cartography of logical space” in relation to contested political concepts. (List, 2011).
regarding "consensus" in blocksize debate
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/list/PDF-files/LogicalSpace.pdf
Abstract:
Can we design a perfect democratic decision procedure? Condorcet famously observed that majority rule, our paradigmatic democratic procedure, has some desirable properties, but sometimes produces inconsistent outcomes. Revisiting Condorcet’s insights in light of recent work on the aggregation of judgments, I show that there is a conflict between three initially plausible requirements of democracy: “robustness to pluralism,” “basic majoritarianism,” and “collective rationality.” For all but the simplest collective decision problems, no decision procedure meets these three requirements at once; at most two can be met together. This “democratic trilemma” raises the question of which requirement to give up. Since different answers correspond to different views about what matters most in a democracy, the trilemma suggests a map of the “logical space” in which different conceptions of democracy are located. It also sharpens our thinking about other impossibility problems of social choice and how to avoid them, by capturing a core structure many of these problems have in common. More broadly, it raises the idea of “cartography of logical space” in relation to contested political concepts. (List, 2011).
Put some ridiculously low bids... 
I'm playing with pennies here... about 2000eur. Capital controls
Put some ridiculously low bids...
I'm playing with pennies here... about 2000eur. Capital controls
Put some ridiculously low bids...
Blood on the streets Gentlemen... Yet another dump. Let's see if they have the power to drive it below $200 (that would've been awesome!)
https://cryptowat.ch/
https://cryptowat.ch/
this is such a retarded article
Skin in the game!
Klee, I assume you are currently in USD?
Yeah, I canceled my bid at 248 because I wanted to sleep and was afraid to be away with open orders. I was almost certain that this stupid whale will get rekt so I decided not to risk it.Now maybe I will make a small buy if it goes again around 185 +-10
Thing is, my bedtime order was @167.5...........on Stamp!
Klee, I assume you are currently in USD?
Yeah, I canceled my bid at 248 because I wanted to sleep and was afraid to be away with open orders. I was almost certain that this stupid whale will get rekt so I decided not to risk it.Now maybe I will make a small buy if it goes again around 185 +-10
Klee, I assume you are currently in USD?
Meanwhile LTC:
Ethercoin and fork issue made BTC bleeding. I think BTC will consolidate at $ 200-230 range and will at least double before the next halving.
Jump to: