Quote from: infofront on Today at 07:01:53 PM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on Today at 06:39:50 PM

Quote from: hv_ on Today at 04:46:51 PM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on Today at 04:00:21 PM

Quote from: AlcoHoDL on Today at 07:21:39 AM

FWIW, what I think jbreher is saying, is that BTC and BSV can both potentially be equally decentralized. In other words, the algorithms themselves allow for the same amount of decentralization.

However, BTC is currently far more popular/dominant than BSV, and this currently gives it a higher amount of decentralization. But this is not due to the algorithm itself, but due to popularity/dominance, which could potentially change in the future.

Well, I don't believe it will, for several reasons which have been discussed many times here in WO, but that's essentially what jbreher is saying.

The changes BSV makes to the protocol will inevitably centralize the protocol, and this is being touted as a feature, not a bug by the leaders.

Quote from: Craig Wright

Bitcoin is not and has never been about ‘censorship resistance’. I added the alert key to be able to freeze and reverse transactions, if needed. All that matters in Bitcoin is a public record of any transaction that is reversed.

That vision is NOT decentralized.

Period.

Cause there is nothing such as decentralized

There is only open to join mining an compete for incentives, nobody should ever change the rules

And with incentives there is responsibility and nothing out of law

But meh

That's a red herring.

That's like saying the kitchen table is never perfectly clean, so I might as well take a huge steaming dump on it.

The goal is to move as far in the decentralized direction as possible. Perhaps like "trust minimized" we should say "centralization minimization".

But I do not know why I am talking to you. You are just parroting the talking points of your puppet masters.

Even Satoshi wrote that bitcoin mining will be controlled by a few massive data centers. If that happens, it's logical to think that these mining operations will be bound by regulations such as all the US FATCA/AML/sanctions bullshit. In other words, mining will be somewhat centralized and subject to a certain amount of government control.

I'm not entirely sure that's an inevitability, as BSVers are wont to think. It does seem to be heading into the direction of centralization though. It's not promising that the majority of mining is done in an evil, totalitarian shithole.

jbreher covered that angle by distancing himself from Faketoshi, he knows that it's a loosing battle and he can't justify 90% of shit that comes from Faketoshi's mouth. hv_ is just a dumb talking head and will just parrot whatever the template of the day is. jbreher's angle is to lure noobs in by digging up some obscure definitions and extrapolating them to a point of absurdity, then when no one wants to waste time debating him that the world isn\t flat he thinks he wins Huh

Sure, there are no true absolutes in this world, but it's not even needed. All we need is to make sure that those data centers are spread (more or less) equally across the globe say Americas, Asia, Europe, and Russia (sort of like UN with a possibility of veto). That way changes would require overwhelming consensus from all parties. Such high quorum level would require a lot of debate and be very difficult to achieve thus it would be reserved to truly exceptional cases, like world agreement to defund ISIS. And not a one party directive like FATCA, but a true "global" overwhelming quorum (not ever 50%+1) as anything less would just fork the chain, and can be akin to declaration of war.