however it would be wrong to unnecessarily restrict the capacity of any blockchain in order to favor off chain solutions. Which is what is currently happening to Bitcoin.
I think this is the crux of the problem...Core won't let Bitcoin scale even slightly, because then LN would be a little bit less necessary. Maybe in time something better than LN would be discovered, which would bankrupt Blockstream.
From the sound of it, the whole thing is simply designed to enrich Blockstream, and miners will do nothing about it. But that's the problem I guess--all power is in the hands of the miners, which is an incredibly stupid way to build a decentralized currency.
Exactly! Some say Bitcoin is decentralized but it really isn't. There's only one possible centralization vector in 1st generation coins like Bitcoin, which deposit the decentralization hopes on POW and Moore's law and that's mining. Clearly it's a lost battle already when a handfull of people decide the majority mining software.
Talk about Bilderberg and Rotchilds... lol they're more decentralized than Bitcoin... there are competing factions within those groups
I am not not sure how this will play out. The theory behind POW governance is good and could still work, however this is a unprecedented test of decentralized governance. Mining in Bitcoin is not necessarily as centralized as some people might think it is. Especially if we consider the pools to be like a form of representative democracy for the miners. However if it turns out that the governance mechanisms within Bitcoin are fundamentally flawed, I would consider Dash to be the most likely cryptocurrency that has solved these problems of decentralized governance, through the implementation of a self funding blockchain combined with collateralized and incentivized voting full nodes.
The problem with governance by POW is the fact that not all users of the ecosystem are miners. Exchanges, payment processors, and end-users are all important parts of the ecosystem and effectively have absolutely no say at all in how Bitcoin is run. This has led to a misalignment of incentives where miners can easily act against the best interests of other Bitcoin stakeholders. Unfortunately, Satoshi abandoned the project before these unintended consequences came to light.
I think he did see how this would progress. He even predicted much of what is happening here, including the development of ASIC's and the relative centralization of mining. The theory at least is that the miners are supposed to follow the economic majority because that is what they are incentivized to do. If this does not happen then the governance model behind Bitcoin is indeed fundamentally flawed. However if the miners do end up following the economic majority and scale on chain as was always intended then the governance model of Bitcoin has proved itself to function. This is one of the first real experiments in decentralized governance, it is unprecedented. So it is hard to know when it has actually failed, it could just require more time, for more pressure to build up, maybe even more pain.
I am confident however that if it turns out that Bitcoins governance model is fundamentally flawed then Dash will have most likely solved these specific problems with its unique governance mechanism. I just think it is still to early to tell with any degree of certainty, either way I think that Dash has a bright future, so I will remain a proud supporter of this project. As long as it stays true to origanol vision of Satoshi, which Bitcoin seems to presently be abandoning. I suppose over time the governance of Dash will rest more and more with the masternodes, if I understand the roadmap correctly. So masternode operators please keep the principles of decentralization and freedom close to your heart.