Scalability as in block size limit.
Transaction fees.
The other issues are non issues in relation to the above. (I'd feel progress is happening if we just altered 2 lines of code over the next 3 years while we debated the issue)
http://www.freebanking.org/2014/11/18/bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust/ read this.Where Kevin Dowd's analysis falls short is he doesn't account for the economics in the block halving. The block halving wrestles power away from miners.
I've outlined how miners in cooperation with the proposed change to the protocol can avoid the declining revenue in the halving.
For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.
let me see if I understand you correctly: you're saying that introducing spvp at the protocol level will block the inevitable erosion of miners power, am I correct?
In any case I've to thank you b/c I've never thought of block halving as a way to reduce miners influence on the btc env.
It makes sense and if we take into consideration that after a certain threshold concentration of mining power is pernicious
to the system we should appreciate the satoshi's genius even more.
The usual way of "reading" block halving is a method to control inflation in the system, the one you just make me
discovered is less evident but not less important.
One last thing about the link you share above. I've just gave it a quick glance but I'm not sure that this part 100% true:
However, the mining industry is characterized by large economies of scale. In fact, these economies of scale are so large that the industry is a natural monopoly.
Why, let say, discus fish rather than ghash.io should became a monopoly if being such a thing will mean getting a
btc/fiat ratio equal to 0?
