Doesn't it bother you all in the least that Aeon and Monero are both in the same predicament as the shitcoins you hate, in that none of you have any use as a currency. Very near to zero. Perhaps Monero some. But no where near to 10,000 users, not to mention a million users?
Are we going to circle-jerk ourselves and waste the next years again and end up with nothing in the end?
How about changing our patterns of activity and thinking?
Or are we unable to change? Always going to be talking about investor crap such as limit orders and shit that does nothing for adoption.
United we have the power to change the world. But all I see we are doing here is spinning our wheels like a hamster.
So I am trying to figure out how we construct a crypto coin so that there remains a tension or competition between decentralization and centralization ongoing. We don't want entirely decentralization and no centralization as that is just as bad as entirely centralization...
The problem TBTB is that it appears to me you have set yourself a goal that is impossible to achieve. You are trying to create a cryptocurrency that does not centralize over time and I think this is impossible.
[...]
Similarly with cryptocurrency the goal is not to create a currency that is immune to centralization but to create a currency that is resistant to centralization. All viable cryptocurrency models will probably centralize so the winning model will be the one that maximizes the degrees of freedom in an economy and minimizes government control despite this centralization.
I think this is very insightful especially on the math point about perpetual trend to maximum entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) by getting more individuals to participate. Think of all the billions of people in the world who have no access to a bank account and thus can't transact on the internet.
Except your lack of formal training in computer science means you missed the major monkey wrench in your statement of the ideal goal at least as pertains to crypto currency. That is the technological fact that
centralization of databases is the antithesis of trustless, redundancy, reliability, and high availability.
Any ideas on where to go from there?
My idea is the centralization increasing is the possibility we could have one money for the entire world instead of many national currencies. This makes it easier for a global village of financial exchange. The centralization should not come in the mining because that would be subject to failures and sabotage.
So I think you were correct but misapplied the point. I am aiming for balance of decentralization in the mining, but the currency itself becomes centralizing because it replaces the many national currencies which are barriers to global participation.
Very inspiring!