From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: "Mike Hearn" <mike@plan99•net>, "Jérôme Legoupil" <jjlegoupil@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:09:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <556CF426.3030204@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2015 bytes --]
On 06/01/2015 08:55 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus
that's what gives Bitcoin its value.
> No. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.
Nonsense.
Visa, Dollar, Euro, Yuan, Peso have usage.
The value in Bitcoin is *despite* it's far lesser usage.
Yes, the price is a function of demand, but demand is a function of
utility. Despite orders of magnitude less usage than state currencies,
Bitcoin has utility. This premium *only* exists due to its lack of
centralized control. I would not work full time, or at all, on Bitcoin
if it was not for decentralization; nor would I hold any of it. I doubt
anyone would show an interest in Bitcoin if it was not decentralized. If
it centralized even you would be forced to find something else to do,
because Bitcoin "usage" would drop to zero.
> It's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation
is a means to an end.
No, it was/is the primary objective. Paypal had already been done. If
anything is maddening it's that you of all people can't see this. When
people talk about the core innovation of Bitcoin, it's a conversation
about Byzantine Generals, not wicked growth hacking.
> in April 2009 and it was perfectly decentralised [...] every wallet
was a full node and every computer was capable of mining. So if you
believe what you just wrote [...] Bitcoin's value has gone down every
day since
An obvious non sequitur. By way of example, if 10 of 10 participants are
capable of mining it is not more decentralized than if 1,000 in 100,000
are doing so. 1,000 *people* in control vs. 10 is two orders of
magnitude more decentralized. The *percentage* of the community that
mines is totally irrelevant, it's the absolute number of (independent)
people that matters.
I'm not making a statement on block size, just trying to help ensure
that ill-considered ideas, like this inversion of the core value
proposition, stay on the margins.
e
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-02 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-01 12:45 Jérôme Legoupil
2015-06-01 13:00 ` Adam Back
2015-06-01 13:37 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-01 15:55 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-01 16:41 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-02 0:09 ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2015-06-02 11:03 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-02 16:18 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-06-13 6:05 ` odinn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=556CF426.3030204@voskuil.org \
--to=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=jjlegoupil@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox