Quote from: pa on January 19, 2016, 04:05:33 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 19, 2016, 03:58:22 AM

Quote from: jwinterm on January 19, 2016, 03:55:27 AM

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time Cheesy

Are you trying to kill Monero with a political Trojan Horse? Cheesy

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3f3tnj/given_all_the_ingratitude_rbitcoin_is_giving_the/

Smooth's comment there catches my attention because it is conceptually perfect this notion that since this benefits the world then open source is the correct way that any one can contribute and together we can build something. And we can all profit by holding the coin and/or the ecosystem benefits of having the coin.

Unfortunately the economics and politics don't seem to be working out that way. Currency requires the participation of the majority.

Perhaps the missing ingredient was instant microtransactions so that the sucker could just blast off in the network effects arena. That is my bet if I proceed.

Seems to me that Bitcoin lost momentum (and encouraged forks such as Blockstream) when it failed to solve the key scaling features.

Contrary to CoinHoarder's total smearing of me in the other thread, I still see a huge possible window of opportunity.

How to make something like that happen without burdening it with too many cooks (devs) too early yet also not be ignored by the other smart devs because either they are correct that I am not worthy of their attenion or otherwise being a potential mortal threat to their vested interests if I was worthy. As smooth says, people have a difficult time seeing what they are paid (or vested) to not see.

Also I don't like this idea by Monero devs that they need the Bitcoin core devs (although nullc seems to be a really smart dude....isn't that gmaxwell?). You have enough smart guys already, but you need to have the right design. More smart guys will just be too many cooks in the kitchen and bog you down in endless discussions.

We need a leader (a new Satoshi) who can implement all by himself. I don't know if I am that guy. Probably not (too ill, over a decade since I have completed a major project, not even a cryptographer).

Apologies I am rambling because been awake too many hours. Maybe there is a morsel or two of coherence above.

Edit: I think my point is none of us are Satoshi. Certainly not gmaxwell nor Adam Back. As smart as they are in narrow fields such as cryptography, they have both proved they can totally screw up Bitcoin and don't have the leadership nor holistic design sense to be vanguard in revolution. When I read Adam Back's publicized and politicized exchanges over the block size issue, I just cringe (hey the entire point of trustless decentralization was we wouldn't need such soap opera spokesmen so I would rather hear some paradigm-shift technical solution that eliminates the need for any politics whatsoever, e.g. Linus adopted decentralized version control of Git to rid himself of being the only one with write permission on the Linux repository...as he says that many people value his repository but they are welcome to grab from anyone else's so that no one has a monopoly).

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on December 31, 2015, 04:40:20 PM

If we understand the reasoning that led to certain details of the design (like the 1 MB limit and the abrupt halvings of the reward) we have a better chance of predicting what would happen if we changed them.

Those who want to reform bitcoin so that it replaces VISA or ACH should put bitcoin aside and start the design such a system from scratch, choosing at each step the gears and rivets that are better suited to those goals. But, first, they should justify why the world needs a better option for those goals and why they think that they can design one.

(That said: in fact, I believe that, as a software engineer, Satoshi, was much better than Gavin and Mike, who are much better than all the Blockstream developers -- who are totally incompetent and irresponsible in that regard.)

Seems to me he is saying that Blockstream may be technically knowledgeable yet incompetent and irresponsible in terms of holistic issues, marketing issues, focus, etc..