As far I know, Szabo first publicly wrote about bitcoin in 2011 (or Nov 1st 2008 ), but he didn't really jump in to the community until his twitter presence recently (to my knowledge, anyways).

Here's his commentary from 2011: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2011/05/bitcoin-what-took-ye-so-long.html?m=1

There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

Redecentralization: building a robust cryptocurrency developer network

https://blog.conformal.com/redecentralization-robust-developer-network/

 

They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense

SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it.
[/quote]

i meant a SC running it's own security scheme but connected to MC via spvp.

who's going to pay you to clone it and make a SC for it when no one from the Bitcoin community will use your SC since FantastiCOIN may be attractive to speculators precisely b/c it provides inflation?

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.

By "made the law" it means it isn't voluntary.  Usually this works through both moral suasion, and force.  
No one in your country will accept your bitcoin or else they may be called a traitor.
People that you know have lost family members, your friends or your children are going off to fight to defend your home.
The authorities have let it be known that this is the only way you and your way of life will survive, and if you lose the battle you will be killed or enslaved because you have the wrong type hair/eyes/language whatever.

This sort of circumstance is the one regions typically find themselves in when there is a central bank scheme brewing up (or when one becomes abolished).
By not trading in your bitcoin for gov.inflation.coin you won't be able to spend them, and if your government wins the war, you have to hope then never discover your deceit for the rest of your days.  If they lose, and you survive, it is a different set of challenges.

It is easy to say what one might or might not do when not in the circumstance, but this method has been very successful throughout history on both wars of aggression and of defense for establishing central banks.

Paper money was innovated by the Huns... and so they conquered Asia.

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money


http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html

D&T is struggling with banks with his exchange type company, not surprising that he is pretty busy.

On the MBS proposal topic.

The solutions I suggest for the scalability issue based on the Max_blocksize is more a hybrid of the two.

There are at least two problems with Gavin's proposal that are resolved very simply with mine.
1) What if the open-loop solution is too big and knocks lots of nodes off the network increasing centralization.
2) How do we know when the next time we need some central money planning decision authority to suggest a new target MAX_BLOCKSIZE?

Simply stated: We use a factor of the recent blocksize with adjustment restrictions to prevent burst abuse conditions (TX spam, etc) -the closed loop, and use an upper limit of the exponential solution -the open loop.
When they converge, then we know that it is time for whomever is the new consensus builder to propose something different (or to recognize that there is some other problem needing attention).

What this does (among other things) is it avoids the potential condition where we have solved scalability in other ways (such as side chains or something else) and typical block sizes are still in the 1-2MB range (decades from now) and the network of that time is more or less built around this expectation, lots of hobbyists, and we have very good resilience.
Then suddenly we get a bunch of 1GB blocks (because it is under the limit of the protocol) but folks aren't expecting it and we lose 7/8 of the nodes then running to this bandwidth attack.
Our children will look back at us and think we were idiots for not preventing this sort of thing when we had the chance.

Worse case scenario, it is only as bad as Gavin's proposal.
Best case scenario, we have a more effective backstop to prevent protocol abuse and encourage node running.