Quote from: Peter R on July 09, 2015, 04:49:37 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 09, 2015, 04:41:25 PM

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.

Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia. What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance. The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept.

You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken, but I see that as a different debate.

One need not be excessively paranoid to suspect that censorship will closely match what governments wish it to when a system is completely under the wing of a handful of huge corporations which operate completely at the pleasure of the government (which they, at best, play some role in molding.) As Peter Todd mentions in his conversations with these people, it is perfectly obvious to this group that censorship is a no-brainer and the only logical way the system can work.

Similarly, one need be more of a historian than a paranoid freak to suspect that governments will formulate policies which protect systems which empower them and their sponsors. I will not be using Bitcoin if/when it relies on the kindness of governments for it's function and thus their protection will not be of benefit to me.

To me, 'the architecture of the network' not only matters but it is the most critical aspect of Bitcoin and the aspect which will define whether it has a chance of keeping the two promises you mention or not.

As an exercise for the interested reader, one might consider Mike Hearn's statement that 'there is no difference between confiscating someones money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years' via mining consolidation and censorship with his statement about a small integer number of copies of the blockchain worldwide supporting a perfectly workable system. It ought to be abundantly clear where HE is wishing to go with this thing, and one might consider this before dedicating ones efforts toward projects aimed at bloating the system as quickly as possible and at all costs (very much including power-grab 'benevolent dictator' style forks and internecine warfare which is almost certain to collapse the ecosystem of it's initial form.)