Re: Is Bitcoin infrastructure too Chinese? What should be done technically?

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.

As much as using this term, "world reserve currency" is common nowadays, it is nonsense. There is and there would be no such thing ever. Central banks use their reserves among other devices, for manipulating market. It is not what bitcoin and cryptocurrency is about.

Denouncing the possibility of elimination of fiat and gov seigniorage is an ideological argument which as a bitcoiner, I'm not aligned with, neither Satoshi:

Code:

Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
2008-11-06 20:15:40 UTC - Original Email - View in Thread
>[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force
>monopolies ellided.]
>
>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.

Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.

Satoshi

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com

I don't think politically neutralizing bitcoin by pushing it to whales/central banks territory in the name of "world reserve currency" would help. For this they have Ripple.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 15, 2018, 07:04:43 AM

Quote

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.

The only solution, acceptable or not, is a PoCW hard fork complemented by a 2 way hash algorithm for retiring ASICs in a 2-3 years window as a package.

Quote

Massive adoption of bitcoin raises 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?

As I said, I think it is too early to be concerned about scalability but generally I think off-chain solutions (LN, side chains, ... ) are not that ultimate that BlockStream suggests and we need on-chain scaling through improvements and sharding as well.

Quote

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 13, 2018, 07:42:02 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on October 13, 2018, 11:15:40 AM

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?

No hash power cut-off. Imagine we implant a secondary ASIC-resistant cpu/gpu friendly algo (like ProgPow) and define two parallel difficulty adjustment systems which regulate blocks mined by sha2 at 11 blocks per every 2 hours ratio while gpus are set to generate 1 block in the same window also suppose we use a gradual re-adjustment policy by introducing a decrease/increase strategy for above parameters. See? no cut-off!

Quote

When should the community expect a written proposal?

Understanding the need for a hard fork, and not being interested in following bch fate, I have realized that I need to produce a complete package and it is hard job for a lone wolf, not impossible but I need more time. I'm thinking of early 2019 for such a package, like 6 months Wink