precisely.  and they're gaining a better understanding of all the financial conflicts as well.  just watch Reddit; theymos got destroyed this morning touting the 1MB FUD story.  mercilessly too, all with great arguments, not just financial but technical too.

the only thing that has helped them recently is the all out effort using character assasination against everyone and even little 'ol me.  good for a few initial points but then over time a doomed strategy which ppl can see right thru and which eventually turns them off.  

bottom line is that they are out of ammo.  Mike & Gavin just need to sit back and watch them self destruct.

but but but...

I heard the financial crisis is over, and soon magical NFLX bearing unicorns will frolic across the globe, bringing fiber to all the deserving children of Ukraine, Africa, Florida, and other formerly impoverished backwaters.  Since all is most assuredly well in fiat-land, it's not clear why we even need Bitcoin, except perhaps as yet another centralized payment rail to act as a retail POS gimmick for the amusement of hipsters/yuppies and profit of VC frat boys.

Of course if that's *not* true and we are headed towards a messy/violent end to the petrodollar's death throes, perhaps preserving and enhancing BTC's diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient properties is a better idea than forever committing every tip at every coffee shop to the MotherChain.

Forget about Gavincoin because the financial crisis is over, thanks to our brave heroic consumers binge watching Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad:



ATH BITCH!   

Incorrect. It requires 51% of the hashrate to flag cheating. Why do you guys repeatedly forget this Bitcoin 101 lesson?

If you do not understand why 10 pools enforced to be non-colluding by politics of the masses is the antithesis of decentralization, then there is nothing I could possibly write that you would actually try to comprehend.

Ditto if you do not understand why 100 pools permanently cited at home bases of the establishment are the antithesis of decentralization.

Distributed != decentralization.

The only way decentralization remains AUTONOMOUSLY resilient (i.e. without the political expectations which are inherently centralizing due to the Logic of Collective Action), is for the full nodes to be the small miners with no proxies such as pools as middle men. There is absolutely no way to achieve this within existing PoW consensus algorithms. I know the solution, but I am not revealing it today.


If I am not mistaken, the LN paradigm is only for setting up reused payment channels between a spender and a recipient, so it is inapplicable to a myriad of micropayments between all N possible participants in the system, because each setup has to go on the block chain. Thus it really isn't a general solution for micropayments, but rather a very specific solution for REAL TIME payments. I invented LN in 2014 also, and my application for it remains REAL TIME payments.

Side chains don't help you with micropayments unless you accept that micropayments will be done centralized on a special centralized SC. In other words, the decentralization of the consensus network design has to be accomplished no matter if you put it on a SC or in Bitcoin Core.


This is another reason that doing micropayments in a centralized SC is death for Core.


That is true also. That is why I said it doesn't matter which direction you go on the block size issue, all paths lead to eating from my hand on the consensus network redesign (and when it is open sourced then everyone can copy it and refine it).

The argument for not increasing the block size is that it is better to move more slowly towards centralization and when it is clear that 1MB (or 8MB w/o automatic exponential scaling) has been too constricting, then consensus can increase it again. This allows time for real solutions to take form, such as mine. Whereas, if you open up the size to exponential scaling, then it is quite possible that the Coinbases, Circles, Paypals, 21 Incs, etc.. will be incentivized to flood the block chain with spam to force it to centralized before we get the chance to experiment (via pegged side chains) to find the optimum solution for scaling.

This is the way engineers think.


Not if it is centralized, and centralization is guaranteed with the current PoW consensus design as Bitcoin scales.

The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..

How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.

Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.

How smug are you now Smartypants.

Several years ago I would not have guessed that Bitcoin's fundamental operational parameters would have been modulated by instantaneous NFLX stock quotes.  Even less so that this would make sense to the putative 'chief scientist' and half of the ecosystem participants (at least here on trolltalk.)  But there it is.

Enough of your silly FUD.  The financial crisis is over.  Our benevolent telecom overlords will, any second now, embark upon unprecedented roll outs of retail broadband infrastructure, all thanks to their massive post-Bernanke/Obamanomics budget surpluses.

NFLX and APPL are at all-time-highs, so stop moaning just because you picked the wrong horse.



GavinCoin is stagnating and doesn't even pay dividends!

Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.

Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).

Non-engineers pontificate.

Real engineers don't piecemeal analysis in order to delude themselves. Now you've just demonstrated for all astute readers that you are disingenuous (and have an agenda which defies the logic of decentralization).

If there is an incentive to collude, then those establishment vulture capital oligarchs (e.g. Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, etc) who've been funding Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will be involved in the collusion with those permanently sited full nodes of the establishment that you proposed. This is the way the corruption of politics works. Duh.

The fact that 2/3 of the voters here are so easily deluded by your political obfuscation of the logic, shows that for sure the people can not react correctly to evidence. They can be fooled and moved on to Sybil attacked pools for example (how many times per day do you think people will play Whack-A-Mole before exhaustion sets in Smartypants).

This is why Bitcoin has already failed, because it has fallen to political control.

Edit: also you assume that the nature of an attack on the network would be "corrupt transactions" which are easy to prove. However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.

Unbelievable!  It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.   

We need 20MB++ blocks ASAP, because God forbid it costs more than a penny to use Bitcoin's seemingly magical, unprecedentedly powerful settlement system (which is based on the most secure and well distributed database in history).

Why should any of the exorbitant expense of running nodes and miners be passed on to consumers?  After all, growth at all costs is more important than closing loops and weaning the network off block rewards.

Bitcoin is like a shark; it must keep moving or die.  As with Uber, it must stay two steps ahead of the regulators.

Oh, wait: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-deemed-employees-by-california-labor-commission/

Nevermind: http://www.coindesk.com/ny-bitcoin-business-45-days-bitlicense/

 

Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.

I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.

Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.