Topic: The Creator vs. Evolutionary Innovation (Read 2568 times)

You wrote:


I answered. Stop messing around.

Cunicula is a troll.

OK, let's try again:


That was my qualm with your post, save the technical discussions for some other thread.  Your reply was about things cunicula said that you disagree with, not about him being very insulting to undeserving chaps.  Again, disagreement != troll.

Off to bed...

Do you really think that cheap discussion tactics are going to get you anywhere? Not even trying to argue my points. Just repeating talking points. Sad.

Its easy to pove that what you repeat about me is true. Im discussing openly with you. Refute my points and prove to everybody that Im what you said. Otherwise you are just making everybody loose their time. Its your opportunity to stick it to a mod.

I rest my case.

I would suggest that if you want to have a rational conversation you stop saying things like:


This is just ridiculous and FUD. Forking is a reality, and in fact happened at the beginning with a bug in the client.


This is a bunch of bullshit. Creating additional nodes is very easy, specially if you are going to profit from gaining more votes. If you are going to create a voting system you need to identify people, which is a bit contradictory if you want to have a pseudo-anonimous currency. This type of bullshit is what you call "thinking people".

Also, the above statment is just trying to create "class warfare" mentality. People is not forced to use Bitcoin, if they dont like it or think its unfair they can go and use another currency or even create their own. Bitcoin is open source so you only need to change a few lines in the code and you are set to go. The Bitcoin community has done all the work for you. It does not get easier than that. How is that creating a domination elite?

The guy is a troll, and not very intelligent at that. For example, BubbleBoy was a troll but one you could be entertained with because he was intelligent.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, hugolp!  This is simply insulting.  "Troll" doesn't mean "person who disagrees with hugolp".  Cunicula has consistently posted insightful and interesting comments, observations, suggestions and proposals.  He is clearly capable of thinking outside of the Bitcoin religious sect mentality and contributes far more to the discussions than most other members of the forum.  The only time I've ever seen him lose his temper is when replying to Atlas' and your own grandiose verbal diarrhea, which almost everyone who has a neuron can agree is a net positive contribution to the forum.  I challenge you to back up your statement with evidence of Cunicula ever being "very insulting" to anyone that isn't you or Atlas.  It's absolute insanity that this "troll" nonsense is coming out of a "Hero Member" and "Global Moderator".  If anything, Bitcoin needs more thinking people like cunicula and fewer dogmatic people like you.

For the Creator so loved the Bitcoin that he will send his only Son, so that whoever hashes by his algorithm shall not meet obsolescence but shall become future proof.


or something like that

Cunicula is a known troll. This was his lame attempt at starting a "class war". He is always very insulting and puts other peole down.

Since you are a moderator, I think you get the exception.
It was more or a rule of thumb I guess.
Tasty /made asinine general statement.

Hint: if you're serious with bitcoin, ignore the forum (almost) completely. The set of people that visit the forums , except for a few people, is completely distinct from the set of people that actively work on the code.

I think it's some kind of troll trap

I'm compiling code and running tests. That involves lots of waiting on the computer. I may as well read the forum while doing so.

don't pay attention to the ones who sit on the forums all day night long, they are doing nothing.

I don't know the Dev team personally. As a poster and reader of the forum, it often seems like "the few crackpot forum members" are actually the majority.

I have some suggestions on the issues (i) and (ii), see http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19130.0
The specifics of the suggestions can be discussed there. The discussion here is intended to be more general.

The suggestion for (iii) is much simpler so I'll just write it here. I'm sceptical that a good security outcome can be achieved without introducing some blockchain rules governing transactions.
If someone steals my atm card, they can't take that much of my money because fraud prevention will prevent them.
I would like to be able to opt into having the blockchain work like fraud prevention. I don't see why I should have to pay a Bitcoin bank to perform this service.


"To work" is a meaningless phrase. Paypal works. Unlike with bitcoin, I can buy goods with paypal that I can't find for a lower price elsewhere.
Does this mean that improving upon Paypal is a useless endeavor?

Transactions that can be conducted within p2p protocols at exceptionally low cost should be part of p2p protocols. Conventional banking and insurance today is quite costly. For a microcurrency, it will be even more costly. The point should be to make as efficient a financial and monetary system as possible.

Who is this "entity" that refuses to change and worships "the creator"? A few crackpot forum members? Bitcoin is an active project with an active dev team, and if you have good ideas for improvements you're welcome on the mailing list.

Apart from the basic assumptions (coin generation rate, max number of coins) everything is open to discussion, including protocol improvements (if backwards/forwards compatible). Big changes have been made before. It's not like it's set in stone and the only thing that happens there is worshipping Satoshi's code...

Yes, my sense is that there is no real test unless opinion is really divided about an update. How will the system handle real competition between two ideas about the blockchain? If the process for resolving conflict turns out to be extremely dysfunctional and chaotic, then I would like to know that in advance. At this point, I'm not sure whether trusting bitcoin is equivalent to believing that there will never be a divisive conflict among the user base, or if I can trust bitcoin even in the event of such  conflict. I would feel a lot better if I knew the system had a proven track record of handling conflict through a transparent process. I don't know this yet and won't take the word of developers at face value.

I think bitcoin has not only a significant percentage of the most likely early adopters in the tech community involved in it, but also brand recognition that by itself is enormously important and difficult for a new entrant to compete against.


i) That's the bootstrapping problem that any new currency will have, and I think bitcoin has managed well. Unless you're referring to some other aspect of bitcoin that could be improved in a new variant..?
ii) I haven't thought a lot about this, but I don't see any major problems in using options markets to reduce volatility. That is what all other currencies use. Every thing doesn't have to be part of the peer-to-peer protocol to work.
iii) That's not part of the protocol. Security can be added to the wallet without any changes to bitcoin.


I agree that this would be good. It's comparable to voting power being proportional to how much taxes one pays. It would quickly eliminate special interest politics, like welfare, corporate subsidies and bank bailouts.

 

+1!!!!

HURRAY BITCOIN! lol

About switching costs. Yes, of course this is correct in principle. Either bitcoin's combination of quality and network effects are already sufficient to discourage entry from competitors, or they are not yet sufficient. I vote for not yet sufficient. The protocol has serious deficiencies in the areas of i) incentives for adoption ii) provision of insurance against price changes iii) wallet security. The network is still small. Adjusting the merchant infrastructure is costly, but the existing merchant infrastructure is extremely small.  Demand for coins is larger, but this comes from speculators and they can switch to a new speculative investment at very low cost. Thus, I don't see the argument for large switching costs. A judgement call is involved here. I can understand your POV, but disagree with it.

About wealth. I think that bitcoin should be set-up like a joint-stock company one coin, one vote. Coin holders, not client downloaders, have the best incentives to maintain the value of the bitcoin economy. There are theoretical problems with the expropriation of minority shareholders. I'm sceptical that bitcoin would encounter these problems, however, because minority shareholders also make up the user base. You can't expropriate them without destroying the value of bitcoin assets. I will not be discussing US politics with anyone in this thread.

Missed that little point on the first read-through.

People should be represented by how much wealth they have? Hello, welcome to U.S. Politics. Just call your favorite lobbyist or give to your favorite corporation to proceed.