...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.
....
Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.
Right to the point.
ASICs are bad but pools are horrible, both should be taken care of but we need to understand without a truly pool-resistant fork bitcoin has no chance to be adopted in levels much higher than what it is right now
because it is not decentralized enough and could not be considered secure for bigger missions.
What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively.
I believe Bitcoin can be a world reserve currency, but taking away the right to print money and seigniorage from the government would be impossible.
To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.
What's the
acceptable solution? The problem in Bitcoin is many developers have just discovered it and some of them already propose to "save" it without fully understanding the trade-offs.
Massive adoption of bitcoin rises scalability challenges, but we could just wait for them to actually happen then figure out a solution but it is a process that never gonna boost with the current fragile situation.
What's your opinion on the Lightning Network or a layered topology for Bitcoin in general?
Let's just forget about scalability, decentralization is a more urgent issue
I agree, decentralization secures on-chain censorship resistance. That's why many people in the community believe, me included, that an off-chain layer is the best way to scale Bitcoin.
I don't see the old scaling debate's
scalability vs decentralization dilemma (or the stupid Buterin trilemma) as a viable discourse, (as you know already) but I think it is not our problem today. Once bitcoin got enough stem and started boosting in adoption, we can debate off-chain vs on-chain disputes. Without mass adoption, arguing about scalability is pointless.
Most people suppose we need scaling bitcoin to help with adoption. It is absolutely false. Adoption is a slow process and won't be even triggered as a massive one, without a solid, decentralized, uncompromisable network, scaling challenges won't show up until the midst of this process.
Yes but these are "tools" that will help create more tools for the network, and make it easier for new users to enter and use Bitcoin that will help in adoption.
You are granted the right to criticize and disagree, but it will not take away their right to create those tools.
and although I think it is very convenient to retire ASICs and let more commodity devices in, but it would make no difference with pools being in charge.
Is it convenient to hard fork to cut nodes and hash power from the network, and hurt its security? For a developer like yourself, I believe you need to think about these things.
By
convenient,
I mean forking to an ASIC-resistant algo is both desirable and achievable (incrementally tho) but not very effective and helpful while fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws and pooling pressure, is the hard job comparatively and the ultimate decentralization solution.
Desirable knowing that you are cutting off hash power and nodes?
When should the community expect a written proposal?