Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

my bucket theory of finance from the beginnings of this thread never defined miners as in charge or as governors of protocol rules/handouts. they were just one of many group actors in the space along with investors, users, merchants, exchanges, and yes devs, whose priorities and concerns had to be balanced against all the others. the only tried and true principles about miners is that they reorg between short term forks (usually just 1-2 blocks long, same chain) and that all tx fees should go to them and them only in the transition between rewards and fees over the long term for security purposes. this is what BSV is trying to preserve. BCH has perverted this into miners can do whatever they want because they're in charge and that protocol devs can be paid because miners govern it so. this betrays the honest behavior to the original protocol rules as economically incentivized by Satoshi while severely weakening the security of BCH by interfering with the PoW technicals of how block rewards are distributed. what will be the next miner driven policy? inflation of the 21M?

the other obviously misunderstood principle is the one around node behavior as defined in the WP:

 

[sgbett]

I quite agree, lest we forget:

"Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

So simple. So why don't people get it?

 

[AdrianX]

The guy being interviewed here knows Bitcoin. I know this because he's talking about the things I learned about bitcoin empirically.

I have no idea who he really is, but we're moving in the same direction. I think you are a fool if you make up pointless arguments to try to disprove what he's talking about here.

 

[bitsko]

look at the Cambrian explosion of non sensical ideas flowing through r/btc right now. everyone over there has redefined the terms Nakamoto Concensus and miner governance. crazy to see.

I dont know how people find the time and will to browse that shit anymore.

 

[cypherdoc]

one thing is for sure, liquidity on BSV is improving markedly compared to BCH:

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like BCH is just winging it now. here's the thing; none of these elitists have the brilliance of a Satoshi. who in their right minds don't think they'll screw this up? in fact, they already have:

"This is one of the perils of hard-forking every 6 months. We need to KEEP making consistently good decisions about the direction of the protocol".

https://read.cash/@jonald_fyookball/little-known-but-important-facts-about-the-mining-plan-a1f1fe13

 

[Zarathustra]

@cypherdoc @sgbett

We are no longer trying to be “Bitcoin” or “the real Bitcoin”. (..) As Jiang Zhuoer said, we are too small.(..) Another example of practical thinking.

Their leading devaluators are starting to scent what's coming?
Nour?

 

[torusJKL]

Their leadership has given up on being Bitcoin a long time ago when Jihan Wu said that BTC is Bitcoin and BCH is Bitcoin Cash and when Amaury said that the word Cash is much more important in Bitcoin Cash than the word Bitcoin.

 

[freetrader]

when Amaury said that the word Cash is much more important in Bitcoin Cash than the word Bitcoin

You got a reference for that? I've never heard/seen that.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Listen to this and tell me this guy isn't decades ahead in his understanding, especially if you dig into some of the things he's talking about. (His section starts around the 9 minute mark)

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

This "market of miners/investors decide everything" idea is something I pushed for years, and I was wrong at least insofar as

1) I thought the market would decide matters quickly (in fact the market can be horribly wrong for years - just look at Coinmarketcap; spontaneous orders always tend toward an optimal result, but they take time to mature)

and

2) I thought the market could ultimately choose something other than an unchanging protocol as its Keynesian-beauty-contest-in-blocks Schelling point (I explained in this thread earlier why protocol lockdown is optimal)

As a complicating issue, I also thought blocksize was part of the protocol rather than a transfer layer rule.

I used the "any needed rules and incentives can be enforced by this consensus mechanism" quote in the conclusion of the whitepaper as justification, but as Craig Wright has convincingly argued, "enforce" does not mean "create," and there are many possible rules and incentives outside protocol rules. Miners are police, not a legislature.

Taking all this together, lifting the blocksize cap after all never required a view where miners can change the protocol by hashpower voting.

The fact that the Bitcoin protocol as of 2009 could already power everything worth doing completes the argument for setting in stone.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Very interesting interview indeed.

I think the following things:
- He is Satoshi (a genius) and BSV will be bring incredible value to the world
- Some other blockchains have value and will also bring value to the world (but less than BSV)

I believe even Satoshi has blindspots. His classical liberalism makes him rather optimistic regarding governements and laws, and he makes very interesting points regarding the criticism of anarcho-capitalism. But I think his views on the matter are not nuanced enough.

The rule of law exist only in Occident (and this is debatable to what extent), most of humanity don't live under the rule of laws. Even in western countries, we cannot be sure totalitarian dictatorships won't appear (for example, under the banner of environmental protection). We cannot be sure that the welfare state will not keep growing and further erode property rights. And we cannot be sure a WWIII will never happen.

That means censorship-resistance (BTC) and anonymity (XMR) will bring value to humanity until the world is a peaceful place where governments coexist peacefully with each other respecting and protecting the rights of their citizens. In other words, for the foreseeable future.

Basically, CSW arguments are very technologically and philosophically oriented. He doesn't seem to factor in his thinking the political and geopolitical dimensions that build a case for censorship-resistant and opaque blockchains.

 

[torusJKL]

You got a reference for that? I've never heard/seen that.

I haven't found Amaury's quote yet.

Here is the quote from Jihan Wu on November 9th 2017:

 

[Norway]

Good points @BldSwtTrs. However, I don't see how BTC would be more censorship resistant than BSV. Care to elaborate?

 

[torusJKL]

You got a reference for that? I've never heard/seen that.

Here is the quote from Amaury:

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Good points @BldSwtTrs. However, I don't see how BTC would be more censorship resistant than BSV. Care to elaborate?

Trying to answer your question I realize there is no an easy or obvious answer.

I guess we could consider that there will be less validating entities on the BSV network than on the BTC network (I remember CSW suggesting in an interview the number of 10 validating entities for the BSV network). If 10 corporations are making up the network, then I guess we could say that governments could more easily enforce orders preventing tainted coins from being processed and banning set of adresses, than for a network with a bigger number of validating entities.

Also, if the data processing information is dissimenated between only 10 big corporations (think Facebook-like entites...) then I guess we could say that those entities will have a very important political power over the network (the same way Internet giants have consolidated a big political power over the Internet), which will attract governments interference.

I understand that 10 players is largely enough for competition to take place, but we know that once a corporation become big enough, then its ties with the government of its base juridisction strongly developped, and forces other than market forces come into play.

To sum up in one sentence, a more decentralized network could be more politically neutral (and obviously, way less economically efficient).

 

[cypherdoc]

at this point with 10 publicly identified mining pools with another ~50% unknown pools by hash, I dont think anyone can claim BSV mining is centralized anymore. plus, assuming bsv onboards between 5-7 billion users on the planet in the future, where would you rather hide your tx? in there or in the ~100,000 (whatever crippled number it is) nerd user base of btc?
[doublepost=1580055500,1580054530][/doublepost]@jessquit please come back!

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig @imaginary_username please come back!

 

[Norway]

I guess we could consider that there will be less validating entities on the BSV network than on the BTC network.

I don't think this will be true. Today, you have to control 4 mining pools on BTC to get more than 51% of the hashpower. And 6 mining pools on BSV.

In general, I don't think the number of validating nodes will be restricted by the size of the blocks, but restricted by the predictability of blockrewards from block subsidy and transaction fees. A small miner will join a pool, not because the blocks are too big to handle, but because he wants a steady and predictable income.

(By "small miner", I mean a data center with tens or hundreds of asics. The hardware and bandwidth to run a node with terabyte blocks will still be minuscule compared to the hashers and their electricity bills.)