Quote from: muyuu on March 26, 2017, 08:57:33 AM

Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.

I don't even see how this accelerates the "problem", the problem is already there. In bitcoin, 5 entities have majority vote. 14 entities have "overwhelming 90% majority vote", and the dynamics explaining that are pretty clear: it is PoW investment, and the fact that the lottery of who wins a block introduces high volatility, which can be hedged by using a pool. This is *inherent in PoW with ASICS*.

The only thing that can be accelerated by bigger blocks, is that the network topology will adapt somewhat quicker to the reality of the data flow, but the network topology AS SUCH doesn't matter. So I would think it rather positive that the network adapts more to the reality, to render the network more efficient. The network has in any case nothing to do with "decentralization" any more, since a long time.

That said, I don't believe ANYTHING will change in bitcoin. I'm pretty convinced that we are just witnessing the "wars" that are part of the decentralized consensus mechanism that installs immutability (by antagonists not agreeing over change).

Quote

There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.

My idea is that bitcoin is what it is, and will evolve to what it was designed to be: a reserve currency for unregulated big business. (or nothing).

That "unregulated big business" can just as well be a "banking layer" on top of it, like LN, but it shouldn't be integrated in the protocol. The banking layers should be independent layers, in competition with one another, and not one single style frozen in the protocol. But I have not to say what "should be", as "nothing will be". Immutability.

Quote

Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.

Yes. My implication is comprehension of these systems. I'm into this for the comprehension of decentralized systems, and the emergent properties and centralization forces. It are very interesting times. When I post my views on things, this allows me to put my ideas out for comment, and see where I didn't consider certain aspects.

I used to be enthusiastic about bitcoin, I'm now convinced that it contains several fundamental design errors, and I want to see how these design errors determine the "thing" that it will become. I think it has something of a Frankenstein creation now, and I wonder what will become of it. I only see three outcomes:

1) total centralization, huge adoption, and the Troyan horse TPTB will use against people ; but I give it little chance. This is the Core way. Worldwide bitcoin monopoly by a few dark forces no-one knows, worse than the current financial system.

2) Oligarchy of miners, bitcoin adoption niche as reserve currency for unregulated financial affairs that cannot be done with the fiat system ; backbone of "underground economy". Bitcoin for the rich, sleazy business men.

3) Nothing. Bitcoin losing its crown to alt coins, crashing into nothing.