Topic: The Creator vs. Evolutionary Innovation - page 2. (Read 2568 times)

It is already tested and working - updates introduced and we either install them or not. Are you suggesting to implement some extreme radical changes and see how people react to it?


With this thinking you probably should be fine with current fiat systems. After all these wealthy elites know what's better for you and everyone else.

Many imperfect technologies have become the market standard. The switching cost of adopting a new protocol is often more than the cost of the inefficiencies. As far as standards go, I think bitcoin is a pretty good one. It's very well made for a first try at decentralized currency in my opinion.

Yes, but afaik this system has never been tested. If the system is effective that should be demonstrated by putting it in use. Without a demonstration it seems like cheap talk to me.

Also, a voting system that assigned votes in proportion to bitcoin holdings would be much better. Why should the interests of people with no wealth be dramatically overrepresented in the voting process.
Of course people can use their money to game the process (creating additional nodes), but this is an exceptionally cumbersome way of giving the wealthy a voice.

the c) is arbitrarily integrated into protocol. we cast our votes by deciding whether we want to install updated client with specific changes or not.

I don't believe in the long-term survival of an entity that refuses to change with the times out of deference to 'The Creator'. The forum appears to be full of fanatics who cite 'The Creator's' wishes as if they provided sure protection from obsolescence. Do you think 'The Creator' can peer in to the future?

People in this thread are right to point out that changes to the block chain should protect the wealth holdings of existing users. I don't think wealth protection is consistent with preserving the protocol unchanged. I interpret wealth-protection to mean a) don't take incumbents coins b) do not allow more than 21 million coins to be generated c) allow users to vote on protocol changes by creating forks in the blockchain.

Without a workable process for c), which would let the technology evolve, I don't think bitcoin can succeed. Without success, any talk about preserving the bitcoin-denominated wealth of existing holders is moot. Another technology, with a less cumbersome innovation process (likely a centralized one), will take over. Currently, Bitcoin has major defects. New, superior blockchains will be created and obviously desirable modifications have even been proposed in the forum. Committing to a faithful interpretation of "The Creator's" wishes will consign bitcoin to the future's rubbish bin.