Quote from: pereira4 on June 16, 2019, 02:07:59 PM

Quote from: jbreher on June 16, 2019, 03:43:33 AM

Quote from: pereira4 on June 16, 2019, 02:15:58 AM

Quote from: jbreher on June 15, 2019, 07:07:47 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on June 15, 2019, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: jbreher on June 10, 2019, 05:48:16 AM

Quote from: pereira4 on June 09, 2019, 10:58:11 PM

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?

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.

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.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

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.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.

Auditing means running a full node,

Okaaayy....

Quote

validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

Ok, so what's your point?

Quote

like SV

Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat.

Not if there are multiple competing entities at each of these roles.

Let me tell you a parable:

Once in the early days of cryptocurrency, there was a person. This person was a principal in a mining collective. A mining collective that at one point was one of the largest holders of hashpower on the planet. This mining collective went through several technologies leading the pack in H/W efficiency. This effort was very profitable. Yet this effort was a huge PITA. Hence, every block win, all the principals whined all the way to the bank. Eventually, some of the principals decided the PITA factor was not worth the effort. So they decided to get out of mining. They offered to sell the entire system to the other principals. Those other principals debated ROI, colocation services, expected technology node upgrades, power distribution, geographical location, possible competition, etc. And decided that they had had enough as well.

The mining entity shut down.

Some time later, a cabal of economic ignoramuses (albeit quite talented as coders) somehow wrested control of the hearts and minds of the Bitcoin faithful. These economic ignoramuses foisted a negative and potentially fatal change upon the Bitcoin protocol. There was a short battle held over the adoption of this flaw.

Our protagonist, who had been a principal in the mining collective, was aware of the negative aspects of this protocol change. He wished to fight against this abomination. Having divested himself of mining power, however, he was absolutely powerless to do anything about the situation.