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.
OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of
all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.
But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.
Further, where exactly do you see BSV as a bastion of democracy? Nay, it is explicitly a meritocracy.
For these reasons, I reject your characterization of BSV as a tool of totalitarianism. At least without discussion of some
other vector thereof.
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 dysfunctional political 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.
Craig's rhetoric is rather state-loving*, this is true. However, I have yet to hear him advocate any protocol changes in order to make the blockchain more useful for the state. His rhetoric is descriptive, not prescriptive. So what's your point?
*To put a finer point on it, not so much state-loving as civilization-loving or society-loving, with the state being merely proxy these otherwise nebulous 'collective-pseudo-entities'.
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.
No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.
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.
Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.
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.
Great. Then again, you've been claiming to have the ultimate anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency design for years. Maybe it is time to get coding?
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.
I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.