Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 11:23:14 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 08, 2017, 03:25:25 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:16:45 PM

Quote from: jbreher on July 07, 2017, 04:21:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 02:45:47 PM

Miners are not there to change the world, nor they are there to make Bitcoin more usable as many erroneously come to think (including you). They are there exclusively to earn profits, as simple as it ever gets. Whether that helps Bitcoin or not is not their business. In other words, if something doesn't work as intended (read the fees are too high), it is not their fault. If it does, it is. The issue is that they are given, or they have taken, too much power which doesn't match the role they (should) play in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world in particular and money world in general. Instead of being purely utilitarian in their purpose, they somehow managed to become exceptionally elitarian in their existence. Now it's high time to put them where their place should be

Should/Shmould. Who are you (that's the collective you - not you specifically) to tell the miners what their 'proper place' is? The rules is the rules, and they are embedded within the protocol. Bitcoin only works at all due to the clever aligning of miner incentives with 'what is good for Bitcoin'. We have a system heretofore considered impossible that is working splendidly due to this balance. Why would we want to force some change upon the miners? Even if we could, it would likely have unforeseeable side effects.

It is not me (and not us collectively)

Who is to tell the miners where their place should be and what the role they should play. It is the concept of money itself which dictates that. As I told already, miners' role is purely utilitarian, and this role is to allow hassle-free flow of money (in this case, Bitcoin). Obviously, the best case would be free-of-charge ping-time transactions, and if this is possible to implement (which seems to be the case) that should get implemented (since this is what the concept of money is about as such). What miners themselves think about this, whether they like it or not, is absolutely inconsequential. The same pertains to the rules which are embedded in the protocol. They are not something which we should think of as something sacred or untouchable

That which you describe is not Bitcoin

Then don't pretend that Bitcoin is money

Since with miners running amok, Bitcoin loses the features which should make it into money (easiness and cheapness of transacting, to name a few). Money should facilitate the exchange and transfer of value not obstruct them, but today we are going away from that farther and farther. As I said it a few times already, high fees and slow confirmations are mostly inconsequential to speculation and profiteering, but this is not what Bitcoin has been conceived for, right?

Great explanation though. I support your point that money is something that should support the exchange of value rather creating hurdles for it. And bitcoins are greatly doing the job of money without high transaction fees. Bitcoins are attracting investors hugely because they are intrigued by its decentralization. It would be the biggest blunder in digital world to centralize it.