Quote from: IadixDev on March 27, 2017, 12:01:51 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 27, 2017, 11:20:30 AM

Quote from: IadixDev on March 27, 2017, 10:52:49 AM

And I still maintain that bitcoin is built upon sociopathic theories.

I think calling the obvious, "sociopath theories" is exactly the social lie I was talking about.
I'm not excluding empathy, btw. Empathy is included in joy and suffering, in the same way that eating chocolate is included in joy, and getting a hammer blow on your big toe is included in suffering.

Block reward motivation is not based on empathy. Beyond empathy id say consciousness of the network at bigger scale. Of the network operation as a whole.

But it's more involved than running an Asic to compute hashes for reward.

Uh, I was talking about society in general, not bitcoin

In fact, Satoshi mixed several totally different things into one, to come up with a system that seemed brilliant, and turns out to be seriously flawed.

He wanted:

1) to adhere to a sound money theory in order to get a monetary belief (illusion) going. Sound money theory in a setting with monetary competition is an illusion (and suffers from a version of Gresham's law). Sound money theory only makes sense if that money has the monopoly on money and where people are FORCED to use that money, and no other means of exchange, in other words, only under strict economic totalitarianism. But as such, he wanted a convergent series of coin emission.

2) he wanted newcomers to be able to win coins by anything else but buying them from the original devs. As such, he needed a way to create coins for non-stake holders from scratch.

3) he needed to solve the decentralized consensus problem.

4) he needed to cryptographically secure the old consensus (immutability), so that one cannot "redo" old transactions.

These 4 totally different problems to be solved are done in ONE SINGLE SOLUTION, and this was a severe error. Because the requirements are essentially mutually exclusive. His solution was to get external people do coin creation (2) at diminishing rate (1) in a competitive lottery (3) in such a way that it would cost too much to redo it (4).

However, by doing (1), he caused a need for a squeezed fee market, to pay for the huge amount of work needed to secure the chain (4), in ways that could compromise the permissionlessness of solving the consensus problem (3) by people that may not have vested interests in the system (2).

The 4 problems needed 4 different solutions. In fact, (1) was a ridiculous assumption, but which is still driving the illusions in bitcoin. (2) was important at a certain point, but now the miners are not exactly "newcomers" and the way newcomers acquire coins is not by mining them but by buying them.

(3) it is better to solve the decentralized consensus problem by many stake holders, instead of a few concentrated industrials

(4) digital signatures are cryptographically much, much less wasteful and much, much more secure than proof of work.