Quote from: Shelby Moore

Quote from: hv_ on June 11, 2019, 06:02:01 PM

I really wonder why u guys still try to solve 'decentralized mining' where u migh start with decent definition and maths measurement for that first.

There is only clear central like fiat or xrp, hyperledger ... even PoS is here imo

Agreed that PoS (and its equivalent of a single personality or dev group that has the political power to fork the protocol at will) are 100% centralized. So include: Monero, BCH, BSV, DASH, IOTA, etc.

For example, Fluffy-Monero recently became the only major PoW cryptocurrency to fork its PoW algorithm, bricking many ASICs and causing changes in the economics for other miners. Chaos.

But the PoW algorithm change was just on heels of multiple changes to the protocol of Monero and Ethereum for example over the years. These are not anything like Bitcoin, which entirely resists consensus changes and politics. They are more like Corporations. Corporations are a prime feature of statism.

Quote from: hv_ on June 11, 2019, 06:02:01 PM

Open PoW blockchain where hardest competition and highest degrees of freedom = highest friction does ensure the killing of any too big to fail / monopolist over time. Even the inner force of a potential monopolist that a central dictated coin has no value will stop him to grow over a specific ownership, wouldn't it?

Yeah seems to have been proven to be true thus far for real immutable Bitcoin (i.e. not Core). But not true for all the other PoW coins, because theyre not immutable and thus are centralized analogous to statism.

I thought Bitcoin might centralize due to economies-of-scale of control over fabs and ASICs. But what I failed to incorporate into my thinking at that prior juncture is that apparently fabs are not as difficult to replicate as I thought. Watching TMSC on the way to conquering Intel has opened my eyes a bit.

However, the end game of Bitcoin still appears to be diabolical. I will blog my thoughts about this when I have available time.

I still would prefer a PoW that worked with commodity hardware, but this may be impossible. I recently thought I had a solution, but then I found a flaw in it. Seems the power-law applies in spades. But I am still pondering it deeply at the technology level. In fact that is what I have been researching lately when Im not distracted by this discussion. You have no idea of how deep my mental thoughts about various PoW designs has delved. Seriously I (and presumably many others) have really explored it very, very deeply with ideas for complex Rube Goldberg machines of various types and configurations.

Quote from: hv_ on June 11, 2019, 06:02:01 PM

Increase the degrees of freedom, get rid of artificial limits that are lowering some miners risks (... bandwidth...)

The low bandwidth is necessary so that connectivity is irrelevant. So Bitcoin survives even if the Internet is turned off. So that even a satellite or short-wave radio connection is sufficient. So that mining in remote locations is even viable. Bitcoin will survive the extreme global totalitarianism and wars that are coming. Bitcoin was put here by the global elite so their wealth can survive what they are planning to do to world over the next decade(s):

https://thechive.com/2012/03/08/something-is-rotten-in-the-denver-airport-25-photos/

https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery

Bitcoin was not designed to scale transaction volume. It was designed to have the maximum resistance against loss of store-of-value. Please understand that apparently a medium-of-exchange design must make tradeoffs which sacrifice some of the store-of-value assurances. However, research continues so well see

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

I've taken the liberty to unroll a quote level.

Which you obviously should do, since @THX 1138 obviously was not posting his own thoughts. Lets presume he is entirely unbiased and just trying to faciliate the back-and-forth of the discussion. Given that I have made a pledge to not attempt to circumvent the idiotic ban by using sockpuppets. I really would prefer to not be having this discussion on this forum, but unfortunately you guys continue to reward Theymos for his role in the Core scam. Analogously we continue to reward the USGovt for its scams by paying an unconstitional income tax. Ditto all the income taxes in all the nations of earth which are all corrupt. I left this forum. Did not even seek to have any information posted here for the past months. But this issue is rather important, so I sacrifice my time to provide the only voice in this entire forum who is capable or willing to provide the explanations that I do. I do it even I should not.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Thanks, THX. How's LUH? Fine, I hope.

I see youre reminding him that he is your friend. Political/peer pressure?

Peer pressure is incompatible with a search for truth.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

First, calm down.

Lol. Did you calm down when you wrote to me absurd and maybe you should proof read before sending in private messages when I explained that you had not grabbed my latest email when you posted my response upthread. My latest email had been sent to you many hours before you posted. Is it absurd for me to be multitasking, fall asleep in the middle of the day due to my illness, and then think of edits from time-to-time? It is absurd that I am blind in one eye?

(You do not know what goes on in my daily life. You do not know that I tried to eat my favorite Louisiana dish red beans and rice the prior day and it caused me to have a severe flare-up of what appears to be something like Crohns disease so that means essentially wallowing in bed unable to think and running to the toilet frequently. You seem to not also understand that the power and Internet frequently shut off in Mindanao. When it rains, they can not keep the power and Internet on.)

I am sorry but I am very sensitive to those who have not walked in my shoes of a decade of illness. And who do not realize how much effort I am expending to try to do something to help the plight that we are collectively in. I dont want to be whor(e)shipped. But to tell me that it is absurd that I do not want my effort to be trampled by careless actions, is going to make me livid.

It is absurd for me to expect that you as an engineer who apparently wrote specifications for a large hardware company cant realize to grab the latest email before posting.

So who is being calm with their words?

As I told you in private email today, I do not think you fully appreciate how much effort I have put in to try to help you not lose your wealth. But alas, I should not throw my pearls at swine, because swine do not even realize when someone is trying to help them, and they trample their savior in the mud. So be it. Everyone go back to their town.

If you are not swine, then please demonstrate so.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications, you sure do have a thin skin. There was no character assassination in my post. This is not the first time you've run off the handle after some merely-imagined slight. I apologize for any offense. None was meant.

Thank you. But should I respond, Absurd. Maybe you should proof-read first?

But wait a minute, you have done it again:

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications []

Am I hasty? Perhaps try reading my early posts in this thread and extasies nutjob venom response? Or perhaps go read my first post in W.O. about this and JJG venom response. No I am not hasty. I even tried to be friendly and calm with my reply to your confusion in your prior reply, but here you write more discombobulated bullshit, instead of realizing the obvious and paying meritorious respect to the person who is trying to teach what he knows. Just as I would if you taught me something valuable. I will explain below.

Note your reply is not venom. But it is somewhat (not entirely) disingenuous (or perhaps you just have somewhat discombobulated logic combined with some modicum of Freudian slips you cant control), as I will explain below. Perhaps I also have Freudian slips with my use of terms such a swine? Well I merely put that out there to warn trolls that I do not have time for those who arent genuinely seeking to cooperate to figure out the truth.

You to some extent bear false witness against me. Yet in other instances you have defended me slightly (e.g. your recent admonishment to JJG to at least read my stuff before passing judgement). With the above reference to haste, you enjoin the others who such as Gregory Maxwell who create this illusion that I am hasty when in fact I am always being castigated by trolls while Im initially trying to be polite, factual and impersonal.

Lets take a little walk down memory lane w.r.t. Maxwell and Craig Wrights claim to be Satoshi (following were all my posts):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282144.msg13239629#msg13239629

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg3041642#msg3041642

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4675898.msg42755278#msg42755278

The reason I am a stickler about not allowing such careless words to perpetuate is because they end up taking on a life of their own. People quote them and invent a reality that did not exist.

Tangentially, are you a non-fake Christian? Are you willing to give your life to defend the Constitution that our forefathers gave their life for? Are you unwilling to bend to unconstitutional edicts? Will you stand by your fellow man in doing so? Are you one with us? Or are you one with the Great Harlot? Because I am commanded to come out of the Great Harlot. I am to not bear false witness nor write what can not be corroborated to be truth. You are under no obligation to answer those. Yet they are there to let you know what is on my mind.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote from: Shelby

Quote from: jbreher on June 09, 2019, 05:53:20 PM

How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. Youre ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If youre instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.

My _explicit_ point was that BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, and all other public PoW blockchains suffer this same tendency for mining centralization. I made no claim that BSV was somehow immune from this force. How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own?

How can I say it nicely? Are you incapable of holistically understanding what you read? You accuse me of not being germane (and thus implicitly accuse me of not doing holistic assimilation) but I find it is you who are not assimilating everything and this leads you to falsely accuse me.

You were ostensibly essentially trying to make the claim that any additional alleged tendency for centralization in BSV (i.e. I allege the variable block size is centralizing) is irrelevant, because you argue that the real Bitcoin is also trending to centralization. I argued against your argument that the real Bitcoin is trending to centralization.

The point is that if the main distinction between BSV and the real Bitcoin is the non-immutable block size, then if I am correct that non-immutable blocksize is overt centralization, then that is a significant distinction that should be noted. Especially given that BSV intends to be a widely used medium-of-exchange coin, not like Bitcoin which intends to only be a store-of-value for the uber wealthy.

Additionally I have explained the economic model which I think explains why no hard fork of Bitcoin will ever have the valuation of Bitcoin, because the Bitcoin wealth will not abandon the unforgeable costliness history of the immutable protocol and historic chain of proof-of-work. That is a very simple concept. You implicitly ignore the specific point by continuing to make any arguments in favor of BSV. The entire project is worthless, because it pretends to be the real Bitcoin (aka Satoshis Vision) which it never can be. Impossible + maybe possible = impossible.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own?

I was entirely on point. Please stop the lying which becomes an implicit character assassination.

There is no strawman invention on my part. Geez. Am I not being calm by pointing out that youre ostensibly making a false accusation? Are you rushed and not taking the time to think clearly? If so, who is being calm and methodical here.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 05:57:05 AM

No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.

Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.

I will explain below AFAICS theres no puzzle.

Yes, there is the puzzle of how -- as you claim -- any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure (that is your claim, right?), that Bitcoin survived through the era of the successively abandoned lesser soft block size caps. And I would not have worded the preceding so forcefully, had you not previously indicated to me that you would study these events -- of which you admitted your ignorance -- and provide a suitable explanation of how your theory is congruent with these facts.

Not being aware of certain machinations in the history of Bitcoin is not equivalent to blanket ignorance (and your careless use of that word is dangerously close to implying such). In fact, I already quoted for you the relevant Mike Hearn thread about the issue and already explained to you why there is no puzzle. For you to inject the word ignorance into your reply is very disrespectful given the fact that you are ostensibly the one who is apparently not assimilating all the issues (or at least unable to articulate yourself clearly in a cooperative tone without injecting Freudian slips of ad hominem). I already explained why there was no puzzle. What part of my explanation do you not understand or disagree with and why?

Yes I claim/assert/think any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure eventually, because centralization and politics are failure directed. As I think you will discover if you think there is a better government in this world which you can go rely on as a safe haven. All of the governments are headed into the toilet:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery

Additionally the G20 is moving towards a global minimum tax:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/g20-agrees-to-push-ahead-with-digital-tax/articleshow/69702135.cms

https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/06/08/the-g20-is-targeting-tech-titans-tax-hav?videoId=560239835

Continuing

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out?

I'm not claiming to have worked out any puzzle. I am just saying that the previously-existing soft block caps are puzzling, as they seem to provide direct counter evidence of your theory.

Quote

Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it.

Here's a place to start: http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block , complete with handy pointers to further evidence. Let me know if you need more.

AFAICS, you have not presented any puzzle:

Quote from: http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block

There is also an interesting implication for Gavin Andresen's proposed protocol fork that would allow larger blocks. If the majority of mining pools (by total capacity) choose to ignore some new upper limit then the effect will be to retain a much smaller overall cap. Miners may, indeed, want to do exactly this as block scarcity is the only thing that has any reasonable prospect of helping them achieve higher transaction fees.

So the author cant grok what Schelling point means and why it is important.

Maybe I can help everyone to understand.

There was a lot of politics and arm wrestling going on at the time, e.g. much peer pressure against Luke Jr. who did not want to raise the block size.

The fact that at tha early juncture in Bitcoins history, the pools were (such as via peer pressure on these forums and chats) able to coordinate some tenuous consensus to raise the block size (and before that the default in the client software was the consensus) is not indicative of any puzzle. There was significant centralization in Bitcoin at the inception (e.g. a single reference client software). Bitcoin becomes more decentralized over time (distinguish that from distibuted), not less. At least up to some singularity event. Indeed politics seems to pseudo-function at the town hall level (actually ends up as grid lock which is why tribalism is regressive) because everyone knows everyone (i.e. the Dunbar limit). Humans are well adapted through evolution to tribal scale politics. But politics at scales greater than our Dunbar limit are long-term dysfunctional, rent-seeking, centralized, kleptocracies where politicians (and nameless behind the curtain) sell infinite debt to infinite wants. I will link you again for the umpteenth time in this thread to the Iron Law of (Wide-Scale) Political Economics. I am not implying that you ignored that link, perhaps though you are not assimilating everything?

The point is that at-scale the lack of a 1 MB limit means some nameless mining oligarchy with significant hashrate will spoil the party. And nobody will be able to point a finger at him/her/it. At-scale there is no identifiable Luke Jr. There is only some nameless phenomenon behind the curtain which reflects the facts of the game theory and power vacuum that the lack of a block size cap provides. Can we point the finger at who is corrupting the U.S.A.? We have no Schelling point around which to rally to destroy the Beast.

In short, at-scale miners cant coordinate and achieve the necessary grid lock of tribalism if theres no Schelling point. Remember Vitalik explained that altruism can not be a (i.e. is an undersupplied) public good.

Perhaps you remain unconvinced and you need someone to build a model and run it to convince you. It is not my job to try to convince people of what should be obvious if they have some developed understanding of human history, economics, game theory, etc.. I will leave that to academics such as Rothbard who have the incentive to do so.

I told you about the Schelling point explanation to that link above weeks ago. As did someone else in this thread. So for you to repeat the same thing and inject the word ignorance is really disingenuous.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable v0.1.

So AFAICS theres no puzzle. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which soft limit to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshis immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the unforgeable costliness can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.

At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.

Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite.

He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive.

I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.

Nope. When Satoshi wrote v0.1 he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever.

Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

You seem to believe this is fatal. I do not. All experience hath shewn that, absent outside regulatory force, detrimental natural monopolies are unstable.

So you go on whor(e)shipping statism and you will learn. Mark my word.

I am separating myself from those who do. As I am commanded to do.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM

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.

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoins protocol (aka Satoshis Vision)?

Again with the straw man.

Stop that lying, incorrect slander.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

In direct conflict with what I posted so clearly only one paragraph previously. I am not claiming any hard fork which absolves BSV of the privacy sins of BTC, et al. I am explicitly claiming that they all sit in the same bucket in this regard.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth as if your left brain does not know what your right brain is doing. Perhaps you can not even connect the dots of your own illogic?

Your claim was that Craigs rhetoric about total government accountability and transparency of all transactions is not the protocol of BSV. So therefore by implication you mean that BSV is capable of anonymity. You can not have it both ways and still be coherent.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM

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.

What part ofencryption has as much to do with anonymity

What's with the 'anonymity'? Did you see me employ that term in my arguments above? No. The discussion is not anonymity. It is privacy. Different animals.

You implied anonymity because that is the only way for Craigs rhetoric to be irrelevant.

And besides, even if you are trying to make some distinction between anonymity and privacy, it would be entirely vacuous in this context. What the fuck will encryption alone (without anonymity mix sets) do for privacy that can alleviate Craigs rhetoric? Nothing!

You seem to be delusion about the complexities of even privacy much less against the totalitarianism of national security agencies:

https://medium.com/s/story/a-modest-privacy-protection-proposal-5b47631d7f4c
^
|---- this should open your eyes a bit

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

If you want to discuss anonymity, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. But frankly, my discussion here is merely to compare and contrast BSV with the other Bitcoin forks (to include 0.5.3, which one could argue is either a fork or not a fork).

Anonymity is not a separate issue. It is entirely germane to your claim that Craigs rhetoric is inconsistent with the protocol of BSV.

Hey in case you did not realize it. I am not arguing that Bitcoin has better anonymity. But Bitcoin is not for us to use. It will be for the uber wealthy only. We will all be kicked off of it by high transaction fees and government capital controls. Whereas, Craig claims BSV will be for all of us as a medium-of-exchange coin. Therefore all of my points are germane and not strawmen.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 09, 2019, 05:53:20 PM

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.

Done. In this post above.

Not done. You have provided no explanation which I can discern which explains away the events of the block size soft caps not resulting in the armageddon you foretell for lack of immutable block size caps. Perhaps with the info leading to comprehensive links I provided above, you will be able to work these into your theory.

I thought you were highly intelligent.

Okay maybe you have a high IQ but are just really naive about economics, human history, political theory, etc.. So I have made some additional explanations above. But sorry I do not have time to teach everything that you should have been learning as you were maturing as a man. It is your duty to yourself, to study the world around you.

Normally I am patient to those who are careful with their words and who demonstrate appreciation for my effort, Christian restraint, and other virtues. But those who are arrogant and fling words such as absurd, ignorance, strawmen, etc.. earn less mutual appreciation from me.

The issue is that subconsciously you view me as somewhat smart guy who is deeply flawed. You view me as someone who has accomplished nothing for our cause. You view me as a person who cant back up my theories with quantifiable, unequivocal data and models. In short I believe you are naive nerd. Perhaps I am misjudging you and I was going to call you to get to know you better, but I have become discouraged now.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 09, 2019, 05:53:20 PM

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'.

Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka v0.1) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

For someone so forceful in application of the power law, your willingness to ignore it completely as a force for mining centralization is aggravating.

Power-law does not necessarily equate with centralization, although I have made the argument below many times in the past. Even amongst the uber wealthy there is competition.

The main concern is whether the hashrate would be concentrated amongst such a few number of people, that they could coordinate the enslavement of world. Indeed I still think this is possibly the long-term end game of Bitcoin, which is why I wish there was some way to make proof-of-work function with commodity hardware. But Satoshi appears to have designed Bitcoin to be completely centralized no later than 2141. I will be writing a blog about this in the future. Yet in the meantime, Bitcoin seems to be adequate decentralized as of now (Cores temporary deception notwithstanding). I remain open to discussions about the centralization of Bitcoin. This is open topic which I want to blog more about, think more about, etc.. But again my point is that centralizing a medium-of-exchange is much worse for totalitarianism than centralizing a store-of-value-only reserve asset for the wealthy. Also Craig is correct that the governments are going to absolutely see any global medium-of-exchange (especially if with anonymity) as a threat to their power (over fiat).

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

If you can quantify the centralization forces due to your so-called (ad argumento) 'lack of block size cap Schelling point' and due to the power law distribution of resources and capabilities, and then show how the latter is insignificant as compared to the former, then you will have made a point. Otherwise, no.

What part of BSV wants to be a medium-of-exchange and Bitcoin does not, did you fail to incorporate into your analysis.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

And again, the original v0.1 protocol did not and does not have a 1MB block size cap.

Refuted already.

Code was not the law at the inception. Satoshi was. My proof is he unilaterally inserted the 1 MB limit when he damn well pleased and ignored all requests to make it larger. He disappeared when people started calling him out about the issue. And the 1 MB limit is immutable as Coretards will eventually find out.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM

Quote

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.

I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.

There was no character assassination expressed or implied.

There is no way that the above can be interpreted other than (jus slightly) condescending hubris. And again you were incorrect on every point. And you reaffirmed your tendency to ad hominem (e.g. ignorance and strawmen) in this follow-up reply. I mean it is very clear what your subconscious opinion of me is. The Freudian slips are numerous. I realize that alleging a straw man is not in itself a character assasination. What is clear to me is your subconscious opinion of me. You will learn in time though that I was correct and that my effort was more important than your lacsdasical attitude towards it deserved.

So in summary, I do not think you entirely off-the-rails with character assassination nor hubris. But your discernment is slightly lacking and this leads to a conflict between us. I mean if you were talking right now with Bill Gates for example, you would be more circumspect because you know his time is very expensive.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

You seem to have been so aggravated by the imagined slight such that you walked right over my point.

I am aggravated that you seem to not be a good judge of expertise. And do not give appreciation and assistance where it is due. Being able to correctly appraise value is an important trait.

Likewise I have to appraise the value of those whom I choose to associate more closely with.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

To wit: It matters not what the rhetoric surrounding a coin is, as long as is does not affect the protocol. And the reality is that the loudest voices in 'state loving' within BSV are the very same voices advocating protocol stability.

Bullshit + bullshit = more bullshit.

I have no interest in Craigs scam.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Until such time as you see significant credible call for modifying BSV's protocol to further serve the state, appeals to base emotion based upon suspicion of the state are invalid in technical argument.

No modification is necessary. It already is directed to serving the totalitarian state. But it will fail anyway (as will the totalitarian states and the people who cooperate with them), so I am not worried.

Quote from: jbreher on June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM

Touche' indeed.

Indeed.

Apologies this message could have better articulated if I had more time to devote to it. I simply can not continue to expend more time on this issue.

I hope we can lay this discussion to rest?

Are there any new points? Or will we just be beating a dead horse with more words?