Centralization is a double-edged sword. submitted by
So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream.
But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected. How will this happen?
Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit".
And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately.
End of story. Slow to crumble, fast to collapse
Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis
has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand.
But once a real-time congestion crisis
actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten.
And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
You don't need Blockstream - they need you
- Either Bitcoin dies, and $7 billion dollars in investor wealth evaporates into thin air; or
- The simplest and safest "good enough" on-chain scaling upgrade gets rolled out ASAP - ie, we will get bigger blocks so fast it will make your head spin.
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000. Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like
Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit?
Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored
forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!"
to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet?
Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more.
When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code
and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace
- and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus
really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit).
This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter.
Code is code and money is money
, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit
. Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast
For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days:
(1) Coinbase is suddenly saying
- Bitcoin looks a lot like hard-to-use antiquated assembly code - and Ethereum looks like an easy-to-use modern programming language;
- Blockstream with its toxic, opaque and oppressive culture is scaring away all the new devs - who are flocking to alt-coins like Ethereum which has a healthy, transparent and welcoming culture.
the good devs are flocking to Ethereum now.
Any smart dev can see from a mile away that it would be suicide to try to contribute to Core/Blockstream - Blockstream don't want
any new coders or new ideas, they are insular and insecure and they feel downright threatened
by new coders with fresh ideas.
They've shown this over and over again, eg:
- when they repeatedly freaked out and went nuclear and refused to compromise whenever any dev made a simple safe scaling proposal, like 20 MB blocks, or 8 MB blocks, or 4 MB blocks, or 2 MB blocks, or Adaptive Blocks, etc etc.
- when they ignored other important new stuff, like Xtreme Thinblocks
- when they ostracized important devs like Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and censored the mathematician Peter__R
- when they let their dev mailing list be controlled by guys like btcdrak and kanzure
- plus who knows what kinds of other possible innovations they're ignoring that we never hear about
(2) AntPool is suddenly throwing down the gauntlet, saying they won't do SegWit unless and until they get a hard fork first
AntPool represents a pretty big chunk of hashrate - so all it's gonna take is another big chunk of hashrate to make the same practical business decision as AntPool (to serve Bitcoin users
, instead of serving Blockstream) - and boom! - Blockstream loses their stranglehold on the miners. Devs don't like dicatorships Blockstream is too
jack-booted lock-step to ever attract any more new dev talent.
This is because good devs are very
independent-minded: they can smell a dicatorial organization from a mile away, and so no good dev in their right mind (who might actually have some interesting new ideas that could help
Bitcoin) would ever go near Blockstream and its toxic group-think culture.
And so Blockstream will just continue to stagnate under Gregory Maxwell's oppressive "leadership": Blockstream has backed themselves into a corner
At this point, people are starting to realize that Blockstream is a led by desperate and incompetent dead-enders.
some great coders over there such as Pieter Wuille - and Greg Maxwell is also a great Bitcoin coder, but he is toxic as a "leader"
Blockstream can't do capacity planning, they can't do threat assessment, they can't innovate, they can't prioritize, and they can't communicate
In the end, they're only destroying themselves - by censoring debate, and ostracizing existing innovators (eg, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen) - and scaring away potential new innovators. Remember, Blockstream != Bitcoin
It's important to remember that Blockstream cannot destroy Bitcoin - any more than Mt Gox could.
Once Blockstream is thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Bitcoin community and the media, as "the company that almost strangled the Bitcoin network by trying to force blocks to be smaller than the average web page
" - it's gonna be time for honey-badger jokes all over again. Blockstream's gargantuan conflicts-of-interest will be their downfall
Blockstream is funded by insurance giant AXA
- a company whose CEO is the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group. (He's scheduled to move from CEO of AXA to CEO of HSBC soon. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.)
AXA doesn't even want
cryptocurrency to succeed anyways, because half of the 1 trillion dollars of so-called "assets" on their fraudulent balance sheet is actually nothing more than toxic debt-backed worthless derivatives garbage. (AXA has more derivatives than any other insurance company.
In other words, AXA's balance sheet will be exposed as worthless
and the company will become insolvent (just like Lehman Brothers and AIG did in 2008) once real money
like Bitcoin actually becomes dominant in the world economy - which will "uber" and knock down the whole teetering $1.2 quadrillion
Hmm... AIG... a giant insurance group whose alleged "assets" turned out to be just a worthless pile of toxic debt-backed derivatives on the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat, AIG who triggered the 2008 financial near-meltdown... Who does AIG remind me of... Oh yeah AXA... So let's put AXA in charge of paying for Bitcoin development!
What could possibly go wrong?!? Blockstream's owners HATE Bitcoin
This is the probably the most gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the history of economics. And it's something to think about, as we sit here wondering for years why Blockstream is not only failing
to scale Bitcoin - but it's also actively trying to SABOTAGE anyone ELSE who tries to scale Bitcoin as well. So, be patient - and optimistic
Viewed from one perspective, the fact that this blocksize battle has dragged on for years can be very
But, viewed from another perspective, the fact that it's still going on is positive - because, for example, nobody really dares to say anymore that "blocks should be 1 MB"
- since repeated studies have shown that the current hardware and infrastructure could easily handle 3-4 MB blocks, and Core/Blockstream's own precious SegWit soft-fork is going to need 3-4 MB blocks anyways.
Plus, the only "strengths" that Blockstream had on its side actually turn out to be pretty weak upon closer scrutiny (money from investors like AXA who hate cryptocurrency, censorship from domain squatters who only know how to destroy communities, snark from sockpuppets who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag on uncensored forums).
In fact, if you were part of Blockstream, you'd be pretty demoralized that a rag-tag bunch of big-blocks supporters has been chipping away at you for the past few years, creating new forums, creating new coins, creating new products and services, exposing the economic ignorance of small-block dead-enders - and all the while, Blockstream hasn't been able to deliver on any of its so-called scaling roadmap.
If it hadn't been for a few historical accidents (cheap energy behind the Great Firewall of China, plus the other
"linguistic" firewall that has prevented many people in the Chinese-speaking community from seeing how much of the community actually rejects Blockstream, plus the other accidental fact that bigger blocks involve generalizing Bitcoin, which mathematically happens to require a hard fork
), then Blockstream would not have been able to control Bitcoin development as long as it has.
Yeah, they have
done routine maintenance stuff and efficiency upgrades, like rewriting libsecp256k, which is great, and much appreciated - and Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork) - but the network also needs some simple, safe scaling.
And the network is going to get simple, safe scaling
- whenever it decides that it really, really
And there's nothing that Blockstream can do to block that.
Mt.Gox, once bitcoin’s largest online exchange filed for bankruptcy on February 28 after $63 million worth of bitcoin went missing. The headline-grabbing currency has been shrouded in controversy since. Prices fell sharply, and the day Mt.Gox closed, the cryptocurrency was listed at $565, less than half its value in November. A kid's dad committed suicide after being robbed on Mt. Gox, and r/bitcoin mods censored it . submitted 3 years ago by Minsc ... by Gox/Magikarp if no one else, but, with no disrespect intended to the dead, OP made some poor choices as well. Still a tragedy for sure, as you said. I really feel for the guy and his family. I wish he would have chosen to live at least for their sake. permalink ... Hackers Have Stolen Millions Of Dollars In Bitcoin -- Using Only Phone Numbers Just after midnight on August 11, self-professed night owl Jered Kenna was working at home in Medellin, Colombia, when he was notified the passwords had been reset on two of his email addresses. He tried to set up new passwords himself by p . trending; Bitcoin Heist Wiki Ethereum . Bitcoin Heist Wiki . May 10, 2018 ... Its collapse came after Mt. Gox, once the world's dominant bitcoin exchange, filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan and said it may have lost some 850,000 bitcoins worth $400m due to hacking. All Bitcoin network earn each round 50BTC*6per hour*24hours*14days between difficulty switch, which gives 100800BTC or 1310400 USD. So 1M USD will go to our serious mining group. All consumed power estimates now around 10MWatt for the network, so for this miners it costs 10MWh*24hours*14days*80%*0.1USD/KWh = 268800 UDS. Here we got left 731000USD to spend or invest for them. There is really ...
Deep Healing Energy 528Hz Ancient Frequency Sound Healing Session Zen Meditation - Duration: 3:01:40. Spirit Tribe Awakening Recommended for you Support MadBitcoins: 1PtAdf3LbwrPfX87dQ8TMuKEzuMUZtg1z1 March 10, 2014 -- San Diego, California -- Red, White and MadBitcoins -- MadBitcoins Subscriber Index 2985 ... Java Project Tutorial - Make Login and Register Form Step by Step Using NetBeans And MySQL Database - Duration: 3:43:32. 1BestCsharp blog 7,431,020 views bitcoin wiki, bitcoinwisdom, bitcoin worth, bitcoin wikipedia, bitcoin wallet android, bitcoin webhallen, bitcoin watch, bitcoin worth graph, bitcoin wallet windows, w bitcoin, bitcoin w polsce ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue