Justus and rocks, I am going to address your two recent posts...but in a whitepaper.
Rocks you brush off centralization due to spamming the mining network without even considering it deeply. I've developed a model of centralization which is more scientific.
From the perspective of a Bitcoin user, every possible thing that can go wrong with Bitcoin can be categorized into one of two failure modes:- A payment you belive to be valid, isn't (double spend)
- You are unable to perform a payment that you want to perform (denial of service)
Users may have other requirements including but not limited to:
- Anonymity of identity, linkability, traceability, and or value transferred.
- Expediency of transfer.
- Protection of store-of-value, which can include decentralized control over debasement, inability to do malfeasance which causes a run on the coins, etc.
- Protection of fungibility.
Thus you can see your piecemeal model isn't going to work. You need a more general model of decentralization.
+1. Justus, I've been reading some of your work and I really like your push to clearly and precisely define the cryptocurrency terms we're using. Here's what I had jotted down yesterday, which sort of jives with the two points you made above:
Bitcoin is decentralized if no entity exists with the ability to costlessly double-spend or bar valid transactions from the blockchain.
Thoughts?
You are describing one of the effects of decentralization, but not decentralization itself.