Quote from: jbreher on June 09, 2019, 04:18:43 PM

Another missive from Shelby:

Quote

Quote from: hv_ on June 09, 2019, 07:21:32 AM

https://youtu.be/OqpwuJw7cxY

Craig seems sincere but perhaps hes just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data so that omniscient governments can be held accountable is totalitarianism because accountability does nothing to fix the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Transparency of data cant rectify that flaw of democracy. So given the [Weberian definition of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence), removing our ability to be private means absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craigs naivete.

2. The solution of BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

So in short, Craigs Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshis Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.

Please forward my criticisms to Craig.

Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning all the arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.

I'll reply downthread

1. The argument is that govs can / must globally compete and the open ledger is the correct way how to do. ( see Swissy regulation here...)

2. We both know that profitable systems ALWAYS centralize but profit is the only working incentive to keep Bitcoin stable and valuable to all users. The only repulsive force that works against the profit attractor is maximum fricktion gained by max openess for any operational risks including legal risks that e.g. are mainly responsible to break up chinese mining cartells atm. These risks incl competition / the race to best tech etc will break up any centralization over long term perspective. -> best thing we can do is vote for the simplest stable global legal open protocol in existance i.o. to give any potential competitor the chance to disrupt mining cartells. We know that works fine.