Topic: ToominCoin aka &quot;Bitcoin_Classic&quot; #R3KT - page 61. (Read 157162 times)

If you kick out individuals then you are already a form of a government.

Well, yes. Bitcoin would not only start losing its decentralization, it would also lose its censorship resistance. I doubt that anyone would want to use it at that point.

If classic implements blacklists, then they will assume the position of governors of bitcoin ,and then it will become centralized.

Honestly, with corporations such as Coinbase standing behind them it would not surprise me. However, they won't make the same mistake as XT and would probably implement it down the road.

It's really hard to keep bitcoin decentralized, too many powerhungry people are here Cheesy

Indeed.

can anyone inform us how much will cost us per month to use the Coinbase version of Bitcoin?

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 06:27:09 PM

...
Sheep will always need a leader, but at least we should choose the right ones this time.
...

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.
Bitcoiners are a special sort of sheep -- sheep who, much like yourself, don't think of themselves as sheep. Bitcoiners are anti-authoritarian, wild, angsty, edgy, rebellious sheep! Sheep who identify with lions, think that if it wasn't for their shepherd, they themselves would be lions.
These sheep will not be led Sad

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 05:09:13 PM

you guys got me.

its completely insane to think bitcoin could operate without having the majority of nodes ran by individuals.

clearly what we have now is a very decentralized system

and we need to keep it just the way it is.

This is not about restricting nodes to any particular subset of society but achieving robustness through diversity and diffusion of power.

Continue to educate yourself, maybe one day you'll get it.

have you given up on your 1MB forever stance?

It's not up to me and quite the opposite I'm increasingly comfortable leaving the block size alone for the near future absent some undeniable consensus on how to move forward.

Segwit, payment channels are coming, lightning later on. Bitcoin is thriving why the fuck would you want to mess with it.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: bargainbin on March 25, 2016, 06:11:00 PM

...
This is not about restricting nodes to any particular subset of society but achieving robustness through diversity ...

Diversity?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on March 25, 2016, 06:15:45 PM

If you kick out individuals then you are already a form of a government.

Well, yes. Bitcoin would not only start losing its decentralization, it would also lose its censorship resistance. I doubt that anyone would want to use it at that point.

If classic implements blacklists, then they will assume the position of governors of bitcoin ,and then it will become centralized.

Honestly, with corporations such as Coinbase standing behind them it would not surprise me. However, they won't make the same mistake as XT and would probably implement it down the road.

It's really hard to keep bitcoin decentralized, too many powerhungry people are here Cheesy

Indeed.

What I have observed is that only about 10-15% of bitcoin users are serious users and what bitcoin to succeed.

The other 90-85% of users are get-rich-quick speculators or opportunists what are not loyal ,and would jump ship instantly if something more sensational comes out.

But also those 85% people are passive people, usually sheep, and dont have much leverage anyway, but the herd effect is scary nontheless.

If people start massive selling, the herd effect makes it worse.

However i think that the core 10-15% of serious users will have most of the prestige in bitcoin, and most people will look up to them as their guidance.

Sheep will always need a leader, but at least we should choose the right ones this time.

I dont mean to centralize bitcoin, I`m saying that the opinion of the prestigeful people matters only

bitcoin is privil-hedge.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 05:09:13 PM

you guys got me.

its completely insane to think bitcoin could operate without having the majority of nodes ran by individuals.

clearly what we have now is a very decentralized system

and we need to keep it just the way it is.

This is not about restricting nodes to any particular subset of society but achieving robustness through diversity and diffusion of power.

Continue to educate yourself, maybe one day you'll get it.

have you given up on your 1MB forever stance?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

If you kick out individuals then you are already a form of a government.

Well, yes. Bitcoin would not only start losing its decentralization, it would also lose its censorship resistance. I doubt that anyone would want to use it at that point.

If classic implements blacklists, then they will assume the position of governors of bitcoin ,and then it will become centralized.

Honestly, with corporations such as Coinbase standing behind them it would not surprise me. However, they won't make the same mistake as XT and would probably implement it down the road.

It's really hard to keep bitcoin decentralized, too many powerhungry people are here Cheesy

Indeed.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on March 25, 2016, 05:55:43 PM

...
This is not about restricting nodes to any particular subset of society but achieving robustness through diversity ...

Diversity?

... You fail to realize that this would result in a very low number of nodes which makes the network more susceptible to a DDoS attack (anything can be crashed with one).
...

Did such a thing ever happen before? What would happen to Bitcoin if it did?
Care to share some studies/numbers/costs?
What would such a DoS attack mean to the Bitcoin network?

>Bitcoin would ... lose its censorship resistance.
WTF does that mean? Another made-up word like "antifragile"?

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: brg444 on March 25, 2016, 06:07:41 PM

or desperate get-rich-quick douches like adamstgBit

I dont really blame them, control freaks are everywhere, we have tried controlling stuff for many centuries, and it led to wars, genocides and suffering.

So let's try a different path of decentralization, for peace and prosperity for humankind.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Lauda on March 25, 2016, 05:55:43 PM

If you kick out individuals and add government/institutions/corporations into the equation you will most likely end up with a central authority.

If you kick out individuals then you are already a form of a government.

If classic implements blacklists, then they will assume the position of governors of bitcoin ,and then it will become centralized.

It's really hard to keep bitcoin decentralized, too many powerhungry people are here Cheesy

or desperate get-rich-quick douches like adamstgBit

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

in my view its my duty as a bitcoiner to discuss my views on its future. this doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the status quo. ( if we all just TRUST 1 group of devs to have our best interest in mind, WTF is the point??? )

This statement is stupid as it implies that this group of developers are somehow act and work as a group (which would imply centralization among other things), but they don't. Core is 'decentralized' as it consists out of a good number of developers employed by various companies. These developers have differentiating views when it comes to a lot of things (this is a good thing).

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

also... Run by various government/institutions/corporations Can == decentralized
beside no one is stopping individuals to invest in a 10,000$ node and participate in this network i am suggesting.

No. You fail to realize that this would result in a very low number of nodes which makes the network more susceptible to a DDoS attack (anything can be crashed with one).

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

IF there is no central authority

If you kick out individuals and add government/institutions/corporations into the equation you will most likely end up with a central authority.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 05:09:13 PM

you guys got me.

its completely insane to think bitcoin could operate without having the majority of nodes ran by individuals.

clearly what we have now is a very decentralized system

and we need to keep it just the way it is.

This is not about restricting nodes to any particular subset of society but achieving robustness through diversity and diffusion of power.

Continue to educate yourself, maybe one day you'll get it.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

you guys got me.

its completely insane to think bitcoin could operate without having the majority of nodes ran by individuals.

clearly what we have now is a very decentralized system

and we need to keep it just the way it is.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:53:34 PM

Quote from: smoothie on March 25, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:11:58 PM

are views as to what constitutes a decentralized system differs to much...

Run by various government/institutions/corporations != decentralized coin. That's a "Capital Coin". If you want such a coin, just fork off with the existing support that you have already. Don't try turning Bitcoin into something that it isn't.

in my view its my duty as a bitcoiner to discuss my views on its future. this doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the status quo. ( if we all just TRUST 1 group of devs to have our best interest in mind, WTF is the point??? )

also... Run by various government/institutions/corporations Can == decentralized

IF there is no central authority

so the peers ~~are~~ tend to be a level above individual poeple. Meh....

beside no one is stopping individuals to invest in a 10,000$ node and participate in this network i am suggesting.

That's a pretty big IF.

Most governments, institutions and corporations are fundamentally centralized. Hence why they each can be regulated.

the canadian government is not subject to the USA government in a centralized manner.

in a sense the systems of governance around the world are decentralized, each operating independently from each other working toward a common goal ( making pencils! )

when the governments meet at the united nations are they there to hear the wishes of a commander and chief and carry out his orders. or do they each act as individuals working ( trying to work ) toward a common goal, each with there own agenda.

So long as there are competing interest who are dependent on a consistent blockchain Bitcoin will remain decentralized.

The Canadian Government is still centralized in that you have a pretty big governmental system controlled from the top down ...just like the banking sector.

You assume that there are no dark-shadowy-elite interests that have control within both US and Canada governments.

The banking sector almost collectively around the world works together to manipulate markets.

Not sure that is really TRUE decentralization in what you described.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on March 25, 2016, 03:23:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 03:18:45 PM

decentralized global currency

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 03:18:45 PM

they will make one that suits their needs.

Jesus christ you are stupid. I feel bad for your kid Sad

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 03:18:45 PM

decentralized global currency

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 03:18:45 PM

they will make one that suits their needs.

Jesus christ you are stupid. I feel bad for your kid Sad

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

say what you will soon enough they will see the value in a decentralized global currency and they will make one that suits their needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGsb39c7KtM

they are getting close!

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smoothie on March 25, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:11:58 PM

are views as to what constitutes a decentralized system differs to much...

Run by various government/institutions/corporations != decentralized coin. That's a "Capital Coin". If you want such a coin, just fork off with the existing support that you have already. Don't try turning Bitcoin into something that it isn't.

in my view its my duty as a bitcoiner to discuss my views on its future. this doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the status quo. ( if we all just TRUST 1 group of devs to have our best interest in mind, WTF is the point??? )

also... Run by various government/institutions/corporations Can == decentralized

IF there is no central authority

so the peers ~~are~~ tend to be a level above individual poeple. Meh....

beside no one is stopping individuals to invest in a 10,000$ node and participate in this network i am suggesting.

That's a pretty big IF.

Most governments, institutions and corporations are fundamentally centralized. Hence why they each can be regulated.

govs and institutions are central authority thatwould never need a decentralized system to operate since it is pretty much the opposite that ensures they keep their power.
plus decentralized systems are way less efficient. so forget about it already godamit.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:53:34 PM

Quote from: smoothie on March 25, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:11:58 PM

are views as to what constitutes a decentralized system differs to much...

Run by various government/institutions/corporations != decentralized coin. That's a "Capital Coin". If you want such a coin, just fork off with the existing support that you have already. Don't try turning Bitcoin into something that it isn't.

in my view its my duty as a bitcoiner to discuss my views on its future. this doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the status quo. ( if we all just TRUST 1 group of devs to have our best interest in mind, WTF is the point??? )

also... Run by various government/institutions/corporations Can == decentralized

IF there is no central authority

so the peers ~~are~~ tend to be a level above individual poeple. Meh....

beside no one is stopping individuals to invest in a 10,000$ node and participate in this network i am suggesting.

That's a pretty big IF.

Most governments, institutions and corporations are fundamentally centralized. Hence why they each can be regulated.

the canadian government is not subject to the USA government in a centralized manner.

in a sense the systems of governance around the world are decentralized, each operating independently from each other working toward a common goal ( making pencils! )

when the governments meet at the united nations are they there to hear the wishes of a commander and chief and carry out his orders. or do they each act as individuals working ( trying to work ) toward a common goal, each with there own agenda.

So long as there are competing interest who are dependent on a consistent blockchain Bitcoin will remain decentralized.

All governments have aligned incentive to control supply of their currency and therefore would unilaterally move to remove the supply cap from Bitcoin.

All governments have aligned incentive to fight capital control and therefore would unilaterally move to enforce redlisting in Bitcoin.

Congratulations, you've just removed anything that Bitcoin was interesting for because you're just one naive fool.

Go read these and try and to get a clue

https://attacksurface.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/bitcoins-social-security/
https://attacksurface.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/bitcoin-development-serves-those-holding-bitcoin/
https://attacksurface.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/bitcoins-distributed-defense/

Then again I'm not sure if you can be saved... there seems to be no bounds to your ignorance

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:53:34 PM

Quote from: smoothie on March 25, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM