Quote from: freshman777 on May 13, 2016, 08:27:29 AM

Another POV, Satoshi knew Bitcoin is flawed and tends to centralization, and he launched it anyway in hopes for others to catch on and improve, as a first step.

Even if you thought this was true, Eth has enormously higher verification costs than Bitcoin, so it would centralize more and faster.

Somewhat related talk with Scam-from-Beyond below:

Quote from: r0ach on May 13, 2016, 06:07:57 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on May 12, 2016, 07:19:35 PM

I'm saying that Bitcoin operates out of a Nash equilibrium.

I don't think you understand the issue. A related subject is, it is clear no cryptocurrency solves Byzantine generals, otherwise number of confirmations wouldn't be entirely subjective. You would be able to say, at a specific number of confirmations, I now have objective proof, but it's not possible. All that matters for the end user is likelihood of transaction reversal past a certain point, and that there's no permanent monopoly on transaction validators.

Unless you believe it's possible to permanently monopolize mining (from pool turnover rate, looks highly unlikely so far), you will get your "good enough" number of subjective confirmations eventually (since there is no upper limit) that most humans agree is not going to be reversed. No other system will be able to improve on that metric either. Closed entropy systems tend to monopolize transaction validators by default, and IOTA is just a train wreck in general. Talking abut Nash equilibrium over the course of 1 confirmation is pointless since Bitcoin (and every other cryptocurrency) is technically unable to objectively solve such a problem with proof in a decentralized manner.