::sigh:: Shelby discovered somethings he'd like to change in an earlier post. To wit:
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 datawithout any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountableis totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data cant rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a monopoly on violence, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craigs naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional.
2. The solution provided by 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.
Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s).
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 arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. The only reason it is functioning now is because Craigs group controls most of the mining and because they have the centralized political power to fork the code and get all the miners to adhere.
It is not the size of the blocks that it is the issue per se. But the fact that changes to the size can not be decentralized.
Also very large block sizes that are not currently fully utilized can be used to destroy other miners and entirely centralize the mining. Well the mining is already centralized, so this is their poison pill to make sure it remains centralized. Craig will never tell you this and he will ban me from any discussions so I can not debate him. I will destroy him in any debate.
Put me on a live youtube debate with Craig and I will roast his ass so badly that he will lose all credibility. Not because I hate him, but because he does not tell the entire story. He hides information that he does not want you to know. Or he is incredibly naive.
Do you not know how large blocks can be used to destroy other miners? Simple, they drive the transaction fees too low. This is not an issue while the coinbase rewards are significant, but will be an issue later.
In short, BSV is technologically inept and will die a fiery death eventually.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.
Craig is no Satoshi. I am much closer to being Satoshi than he is (and yet Im still not and very far from being), from the standpoint of technological knowledge. Craig is an erudite, learnt man. I am a (unfortunately chronically ill, as was Craigs former partner) mad-scientist, primary researcher. These are facts, not hubris.
Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.
Agreed, but AFAICS irrelevant to my points above.
And I rebuked that theory. Competition between democracies does nothing to rectify the inherent flaw of democracy. Only decentralization, trustlessness, permissionlessness, and (optional) anonymity can help us. We need a symmetrical power to resist tyranny. If you think the Swiss arent also destroying themselves, I have bridge on Mars to sell you. Do you need me to cite some Armstrong blogs about the political corruption in Switzerland?
Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol Bitcoin is decentralized enough, except for the dominance of ASICs and the fact that for example solar power in the middle of rural areas is not as viable as hydropower, because ASICs improve too fast so need to keep the hardware running all the time. I believe there may be a technological solution to this. Did you know that solar power is now less expensive than grid power (as low as 1.5 cents per kwh) in places such as Chili and the Middle East.
Then of course we need scaling but with constant block sizes. Again I there may possibly be a technological solution for this as well.
And we need anonymity that is not entirely broken and centralized as is the case for Monero (I am entirely vindicated!)
Lol. Depending on the government to ameliorate the Iron Law of Political Economics centralization due to the game theory of political control. Sounds very logical.
Craig simply offers nothing new and just wants to take us back to old centralized Internet.
Sorry. Facts.
Quote
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 datawithout any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountableis totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data cant rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a monopoly on violence, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craigs naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional.
2. The solution provided by 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.
Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s).
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 arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. The only reason it is functioning now is because Craigs group controls most of the mining and because they have the centralized political power to fork the code and get all the miners to adhere.
It is not the size of the blocks that it is the issue per se. But the fact that changes to the size can not be decentralized.
Also very large block sizes that are not currently fully utilized can be used to destroy other miners and entirely centralize the mining. Well the mining is already centralized, so this is their poison pill to make sure it remains centralized. Craig will never tell you this and he will ban me from any discussions so I can not debate him. I will destroy him in any debate.
Put me on a live youtube debate with Craig and I will roast his ass so badly that he will lose all credibility. Not because I hate him, but because he does not tell the entire story. He hides information that he does not want you to know. Or he is incredibly naive.
Do you not know how large blocks can be used to destroy other miners? Simple, they drive the transaction fees too low. This is not an issue while the coinbase rewards are significant, but will be an issue later.
In short, BSV is technologically inept and will die a fiery death eventually.
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.
Craig is no Satoshi. I am much closer to being Satoshi than he is (and yet Im still not and very far from being), from the standpoint of technological knowledge. Craig is an erudite, learnt man. I am a (unfortunately chronically ill, as was Craigs former partner) mad-scientist, primary researcher. These are facts, not hubris.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow.
Agreed, but AFAICS irrelevant to my points above.
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...)
And I rebuked that theory. Competition between democracies does nothing to rectify the inherent flaw of democracy. Only decentralization, trustlessness, permissionlessness, and (optional) anonymity can help us. We need a symmetrical power to resist tyranny. If you think the Swiss arent also destroying themselves, I have bridge on Mars to sell you. Do you need me to cite some Armstrong blogs about the political corruption in Switzerland?
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.
Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol Bitcoin is decentralized enough, except for the dominance of ASICs and the fact that for example solar power in the middle of rural areas is not as viable as hydropower, because ASICs improve too fast so need to keep the hardware running all the time. I believe there may be a technological solution to this. Did you know that solar power is now less expensive than grid power (as low as 1.5 cents per kwh) in places such as Chili and the Middle East.
Then of course we need scaling but with constant block sizes. Again I there may possibly be a technological solution for this as well.
And we need anonymity that is not entirely broken and centralized as is the case for Monero (I am entirely vindicated!)
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.
Lol. Depending on the government to ameliorate the Iron Law of Political Economics centralization due to the game theory of political control. Sounds very logical.
Craig simply offers nothing new and just wants to take us back to old centralized Internet.
Sorry. Facts.