Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal.  It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
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.


Proof of work is probabilistic transaction ordering (and timestamping
by extension), the only perceivable value in it is that it is
decentralized. If you don't have that set as a requirement there are
plenty of companies around who will act as a time stamping notary for
you, just as there are many cloud services around to host the SQL-
based Bitcoin replacement.


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