Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 06:44:13 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 05:27:40 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 06, 2017, 01:48:59 PM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 06, 2017, 05:40:23 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 06, 2017, 05:24:16 AM

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point

Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this

I couldn't make out what you meant to say, apart from this part

Indeed, profits are the incentive for miners to do their jobs, up to a certain point. But there are a few things which I mentioned but you seem to have failed to notice. First, there is no reason to think that this is the only way to create a decentralized payment system (otherwise known as blockchain), so there is no reason to think either that those who are confirming transactions should (and would) do that for profits only (thus your whole point of communism versus free market becomes irrelevant). And, second, this idea (profit as an incentive to fulfill the purpose) ultimately gets severely in the way of fulfilling that very purpose since miners start to care for profits (in the form of fees) more than for making their job (i.e. confirming transactions)

Considering the long term, miners are incentivized to promote usability. Their income will be dependent on fees, thus, confirming transactions. It is of no interest to the miner not to confirm transactions. I do not understand this argument whatsoever

I certainly understand your pains

Since what I say is counterintuitive, and thus many people have issues with grasping the whole point. But it is not rocket science either, provided you take into account the following. First, you should understand that the miners are interested in profits, and they confirm transactions only as long as that brings them money. That essentially means that their primary objective is earning money. The next step to grasp is to learn that confirming all incoming transactions may not be the optimal strategy to earn maximum amount of profits. In other words, if the miners don't confirm a certain ratio of transactions, their profits may actually rise (and not go down as what many people innocently assume). It is possible due to competition between transactors growing and fees escalating, and this strategy can be working pretty long (at least, as long as Bitcoin price is rising). As you can see, such approach has nothing to do with promoting usability. In fact, it is quite opposite to it, and given the miners' monopoly, it is diametrically opposite to it

I understand this is possible of course. But it is shortsighted also.

We are playing the long game here and Miners have more stake than anyone else in the success of this. I do not see a clear incentive there. Volume outperforms price manipulation.

There is one thing that outperforms volume though. Patents. I wonder if we will soon find out some inserted Patents in the BTC Protocol.