It's actually happening (repost from 4chan)
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (166)
sorted by:
Why do you say the protocol is crippled?
DS can’t capture the developers as it’s developed open source. You can’t capture something that is Open Source, and the Developers themselves have no power.
The power is in the Nodes… the people who RUN the software, that validates. We saw how they told the rich/Wall Street type folks many years back to eat dirt…
There was a point in history when a bunch of centralized exchanges, companies and rich oligarchs wanted to change the protocol (basically change the code) to increase the block size — the ‘New York Agreement’
On face value, we would agree that a large block size would mean more Transactions per Block, but why would this be a bad thing?
Because then the Blockchain would be much larger by magnitudes, and the cost to run a full node would increase by a large margin.
When the cost to run a full node increases, then you will ‘price out’ everyone… which will eventually centralize the operations of Full Nodes to those who can afford it, OR, you offload it to some centralized cloud service like an Infura (runs Ethereum nodes).
At the end of this story is how you capture Bitcoin (BTC).
The Bitcoin Miners were on board with this proposed upgrade. Why? = More BTC per block = more Money
The Companies were on board, why? = They can control more of BTC
The Nodes said “Eat sand” …
The upgrade did not catch.
Bitcoin scales via a Layer 2 solution (like the Lightning Network, which we see now operating in El Salvador at a country scale level). The settlement happens on the Layer 1 protocol.
Ok, so I am sorry to inform you that you have fallen for the BTC maximalist propaganda.
You can check out this article for a decent summary of how it was taken over at the highest levels: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money
There is also this account of the block size debate which shows how early on there was collusion to keep the blocks small and ostracize anyone who spoke out about it. https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada
Censorship on the crypto subreddits was off the charts. Still is, although I don't know how many people are still trying to post truth there.
Basically, Satoshi always intended to increase the block size. The 1MB limit was a safeguard in order to protect the network from spam/DDoS attacks in the early days. Satoshi knew that hardware technology improves according to Moore's Law and we could expect hardware to keep up with demands for the foreseeable future. He knew eventually mining nodes would become specialized and fewer people overall will be running nodes if the cost is high.
But here's the thing: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO RUN A NODE
The way Bitcoin is designed, anyone with just a small piece of software called a lite wallet, can easily verify the blockchain data using the Merkle roots without having to download a full copy of the blockchain. As a normal user, there is no need to verify EVERY transaction on the blockchain when you are only interested in your own.
The BTC propagandists were able to convince people that the point of Bitcoin was to run a node so you don't have to trust anyone to verify YOUR transactions, and to be a "true bitcoiner" you MUST run your own node, therefore blocks must remain small forever so that everyone can run a full node on a raspberry pi.
This is just stupid, since running a full node is a highly technical skill that most people just aren't going to do. Now you also have an even steeper learning curve to teach someone about bitcoin. Then they want to push everything onto layer 2 where Nakamoto consensus is no longer observed. This, IMO, defeats the foundational purpose of Bitcoin since it allows third parties to set themselves up as liquidity providers (aka banks) and provide custodial services to the ignorant masses.
Since 2015 or so, all development on the base protocol has been geared toward making it more compatible and welcoming for the legacy financial institutions while pushing user activity onto layer 2 where third parties have more control.
So that is why I say BTC is compromised and crippled.
Edit to add another point. You said:
So here you are differentiating between "Miners" and "Nodes". The only difference between these groups is that one (miners) has write access to the blockchain, while the other (nodes, or non-miners) can only verify and relay information to each other. You seem to think that non-mining nodes have some sort of veto power on the bitcoin network. They do not. The miners are the only true stakeholders, and so all decisions are theirs.
The New York Agreement was a proposal to increase the block size to 2MB along with a host of other changes, and it turned out to be a bait and switch to placate the big block crowd until after SegWit was released, since that change fundamentally altered the signature architecture and big blockers didn't want it. Thankfully Bitcoin Cash forked before that happened so it preserved the original chain.
A good point of view, but there is a conflation here between participation requirement and control -- Yes, no one needs to run a full node. There will be those who decide to for a variety of purposes... however there is no monetary incentive to run a full node. Why even bring in the maximalist point-of-view into the fundamental debate? It really serves no purpose other than color opinion.
However, you DO bring up good debate points which frankly will lead us to nowhere as I can equally counter your narrative/points and you the same with me, and we end up creating a duality to this debate. I much rather we focus on facts, both observable and prove-able.
There are 2 points which I disagree with you -- compromised and crippled.
With regards to compromised -- there is no evidence for this other than conjecture. I believe you are actually referring to Control vs. Compromised. From what I understand, your assertion is BTC is controlled, but how so? what data and proof do you have that a group of people can at any time change Bitcoin?
For example -- Satoshi is MIA, what he intended may be to increase the blocksize (debatable, but let's run with it), BUT what he also intended was for this protocol to be decentralized and governed by the ecosystem, the People if you may.
Do you see the irony?
At inception, even Satoshi could not control Bitcoin; since then many attempts were made to fork the code to create easily controlled forms of 'Bitcoin-like' Crypto (e.g. BSV, BCH, DOGE, etc.).
So his creation is exactly what was intended... however he can only control the inception, from there is is up the network to decide where it goes.
The point of Bitcoin was to remove the power of money from the central bank and give it to The People of the World (not just America). At the core is the monetary policy or supply -- from there we must discuss what IS 'Money?' (a different time perhaps).
Unfortunately, an open system, is exactly that -- Open, anyone can participate, good or bad. But neither can control -- we can game theory it out for sure. Central Banks are welcomed to participate, but for some reason, they absolutely hate Bitcoin (BTC), I wonder why.
When Sathoshi's invention was released, with the start of the Genesis block, he relinquished all forms of control he had... now it's in the hands of the ecosystem. WHERE does it go from there? we shall see... but after over a decade, and after countless attempts to ban Bitcoin at the nation state level, it's still strong and thriving.
How is that crippled ?
Edit to your Edit!
Yes, the miners can write, but the Nodes need to validate IF they run the software. All the nodes could disappear tomorrow and BTC (and all other crypto really) would cease to exist as an unbroken blockchain.
Again, I would say we are debating the merits and operation of the tech -- all good debates and discussion. But I would assert that Bitcoin (BTC), or any crypto, needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives ... e.g. tech, decentralization, concentration of power (who holds the most), time scale, market size (adoption), mine concentration, hash rate, etc. etc.
First of all thank you for bringing civil debate points. This may be the first encounter I've had where someone didn't immediately call me a shill.
The reason I say compromised is simply because of the direction that network is headed. I think the original design by Satoshi is still alive in both BCH and BSV and I wish that BCH had won the hash war. But I think the reason it went the way it did was because keeping the blocks small created a fee market and the miners end up making more money (in USD terms) in the short run that way even though it limits the growth of the network.
All I can see coming from the BTC camp is layer 2 BS which is only necessary because of the moratorium on increasing the block size. It's never going to scale as intended and that's pretty much guaranteed because of what they've done.
To your point of being an open system, yes, you're right, and I don't mean to imply that the cabal has absolute control of BTC, but they do have it on a short leash. It's possible that BTC will end up taking the dollar's place as a global reserve currency, and I don't think that would be a bad thing, necessarily. But it would not be the real thing, either.
It would be a system set up for normies to use to pay their taxes and do the same things everyone does using credit/fiat, with third party service providers who do all the heavy lifting including securing their users' private keys. If that's how it ends up, then so be it, but I don't think that's what bitcoin was meant to be.