Quote from: RoadStress on March 19, 2015, 04:08:48 AM

If they can transmit transactions with a light client it's equal to having the banking software to me.Maybe I got it wrong but I know that nobody can spend your money without having the private key. A private key kept private makes it impossible for anyone else to spend your money.

That's "equal to having" a web browser that you can use to log into your bank's web site. So no, you aren't being "your own bank." You got it very wrong; they don't need to "spend your money" when they can rewrite history so that you never had any. They don't need your private key in order to create fraudulent coin bases that debase the unit of account.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

I said nothing about the number of full bitcoin nodes being up or down. I said the number of PCs capable of running full nodes is increasing and will not be decreasing any time soon. Maybe one day it will, but this decade is not it, and I seriously doubt the next decade is, either.

If the block size limit were to increase, it would. But the fork ain't happening, so you're right.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

Centralization can be good, especially in say e.g. mining. If mining pools did not exist and it was purely a peer-to-peer operation and a hard or even a soft fork happened that required immediate tending to, it would be virtually impossible to get enough clients to change in a fast enough time frame to save bitcoin. You'd have a massive hard fork and lots of angry people and a complete loss of confidence in bitcoin.

This is not a problem; miners will quickly find the correct chain because they have a lot of money to lose if they don't. Anybody who is mining and isn't aware of the politics of block chain rules is a fool that deserves to go out of business. The network itself is anti-fragile; it isn't going away just because of a disagreement. You're spinning this to sound like if it weren't for USGavin, bitcoin would wither and die. And who cares if "lots of angry people" lose confidence? Does someone who loses confidence in gravity magically start floating? They can whine all they want and then when they've tired themselves out, they can continue using bitcoin because there is no choice in the matter.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

I'm not saying centralization is great, or even good. But it is the lesser of two evils in some instances and if it's a choice between a somewhat centralized bitcoin and no bitcoin at all, I'd say centralization falls on the side of good.

What even is the point of bitcoin if it's not decentralized? A centralized bitcoin is certainly "more evil" than no bitcoin at all simply because it's a self-defeating concept. This is what I mean by "trendier hipsterish." Is bitcoin nothing more than a way to pick up chicks to you? A nerdy new conversation starter instead of the world burner it truly is.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

As for the counterbalance, one example is lined above. Having a centralized structure housed in 4 or 5 or even 15 top pools means if there's an attack or threat, the blockchain can evolve rapidly.

Having a "centralized structure" is the threat! An "evolving blockchain" is the threat! These were exactly the arguments used to create the Federal Reserve! Is that what you want? A new-age FED?

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

Neither is a perfect solution, but what I do know is that limiting the transaction volume to a paltry 1 MB is going to not only hurt bitcoin, but completely kill it as far as global, massive uptake goes.

And how do you "know" that? I see a lot of people making this assumption, but nobody has provided any evidence that it is true. Whereas, I have explained very thoroughly how bitcoin will do just fine with a fixed limit on the block size.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

Off chain solutions are a brain dead solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is how to fix bitcoin and make it scalable... not how to make new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way.

It isn't broken! It already scales just fine! The bitcoin you are imagining is exactly what you explain here: "new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way." You are imagining a hip new version of the Federal Reserve.

Quote from: Snagglebone on March 19, 2015, 05:07:37 AM

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand where you're coming from, but why are you quoting Mircea Popescu? I admit I have not read this entire thread, so maybe there's a reason... but I don't see what value there is to quoting an insane, misogynistic, racist drug addict here? The guy has shown time and again that he has no idea what he's talking about and everything he has ever done in his life is complete garbage (just going by what I've read of and from him, so I could be incorrect). His quotes are like quoting "1, 2, 3, potato!" for all the value it brings.

Drug addict!? Oh this part of your post is so precious! MP will surely get a kick out of it.