Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 240

* Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 240
       [not found] <mailman.2044.1441052894.17588.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
@ 2015-08-31 20:44 ` William Miller
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: William Miller @ 2015-08-31 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

Personally, as more big companies pile up the hardware, I think
decentralization will suffer. If bitcoin winds up where only those with
enough money to buy expensive mining equipment are left, what is that but
another form of centralization (where a few companies hold all the power
over mining). I see this as more of a long term threat to bitcoin than the
current blocksize debate, XT or anything else.
Just my opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org
[mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:28 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 240

Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
	bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	bitcoin-dev-owner@lists•linuxfoundation.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Your Gmaxwell exchange (Mike Hearn)
   2. Re: Your Gmaxwell exchange (Monarch)
   3. Re: Your Gmaxwell exchange (Justus Ranvier)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:11:52 +0200
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Message-ID:
	<CA+w+GKQk=tHTKrryfAYJWWDadij3k8ccfCi-yp9K7WRw9aMxkA@mail•gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think your summary of what people actually want from decentralisation is
pretty good, Justus.

> I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares about 
> decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define that 
> term.
>

+1 Insightful

It's been quite impressive to see so many Bitcoin users and developers
saying, "Bitcoin is totally decentralised because it's open source and
nobody is in charge...... oh nooooooo we didn't mean you could change *those
lines! *If you want to change *those lines* then *we* must agree first!"

Believing simultaneously that:

1. Bitcoin is decentralised

2. Nobody should modify the code in certain ways without the agreement of me
and my buddies

is just doublethink.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150831
/d0a2bac3/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:06:21 +0000
From: Monarch <monarch@cock•li>
To: hearn@vinumeris•com
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Message-ID: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock•li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 2015-08-31 19:11, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think your summary of what people actually want from 
> decentralisation is pretty good, Justus.
> 
> 
>> I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares about 
>> decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define that 
>> term.
> 
> +1 Insightful
> 

What is Bitcoin if not decentralized?

Bitcoin the most awkward, unprivate and damaging currencies ever created.
It is terribly slow for general use, and it is very difficult for users to
get over the technical hurdles required to use it safety.  It is
simultaneously the least private payment system ever conceived for general
use, yet still manages to consistently help terrorists and pedophiles.  Over
half a gigawatt of power is used to power the miners which timestamp the
network, causing hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 and radioactive
particles to be spewed into the atmosphere.

Perhaps we can justify these damages as the cost of decentralization,
similar to one justifying the tor anonymity network as having significant
positive effects outweighing the negative.  However if you are truly willing
to give the goal of absolute decentralization up as unachievable or
unrealistic, it would be much more sensible to replace the entire Bitcoin
network with a couple of geographically distributed SQL servers and call it
a day.

Without decentralization as an ultimate goal, Bitcoin is an abomination that
is best dismantled.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:27:53 -0500
From: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Message-ID: <55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 08/31/2015 03:06 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> What is Bitcoin if not decentralized?
> 
> Bitcoin the most awkward, unprivate and damaging currencies ever 
> created.  It is terribly slow for general use, and it is very 
> difficult for users to get over the technical hurdles required to use 
> it safety.  It is simultaneously the least private payment system ever 
> conceived for general use, yet still manages to consistently help 
> terrorists and pedophiles.  Over half a gigawatt of power is used to 
> power the miners which timestamp the network, causing hundreds of 
> millions of tonnes of CO2 and radioactive particles to be spewed into 
> the atmosphere.
> 
> Perhaps we can justify these damages as the cost of decentralization, 
> similar to one justifying the tor anonymity network as having 
> significant positive effects outweighing the negative.  However if you 
> are truly willing to give the goal of absolute decentralization up as 
> unachievable or unrealistic, it would be much more sensible to replace 
> the entire Bitcoin network with a couple of geographically distributed 
> SQL servers and call it a day.
> 
> Without decentralization as an ultimate goal, Bitcoin is an 
> abomination that is best dismantled.

You don't understand what value proof of work provides, or what features
differentiate good money from poor money, and you can't make a defensible
statement of Bitcoin's value proposition.

Because you can't do these things, you assume nobody else can do them either
and therefore the only way for Bitcoin to survive is to sweep the problem
under the rug and distract users with a word that means nothing (and
therefore means whatever the observer wants it to mean).

This is not a strategy that can be successful in the long term.

--
Justus Ranvier
Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org
E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xEAD9E623.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 18381 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150831
/6756f898/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150831
/6756f898/attachment.sig>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 240
*******************************************

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread