4 ms·

The primary concern is that if BTC wins, we will all be subservient to an algorithm which no one has any incentive to change. We'll lose all financial controls.

The primary concern is that if BTC wins, we will all be subservient to an algorithm which no one has any incentive to change. We'll lose all financial controls. Worse, people with massive crypto fortunes can act as evil as they want, and society can't do anything to stop them. Right now we can take the money away from the powerful, if society collectively agrees to. That will become impossible. If BTC had no upper limit, I would agree with you. But Satoshi capped it, and theories abound as to why. The most reasonable explanation is that he wanted to incentivize network strength: more participants, the healthier the network, and deflationary currency encourages adoption from a game theory point of view. But think about the endgame. What do you think will happen when coins stop being minted? When there are only 400 BTC left to mine? What will happen to all those miners and the vast worldwide mining apparatus? If Satoshi were still around, he would likely want to remove the hard cap. And then we'd be in a different situation. But he didn't, so we're not.

jstanley 9y ago
Why would it make any difference if Satoshi were still around? He can't make arbitrary changes to the consensus rules any more easily than anyone else can. And you might not be able to take money away from the powerful, but you can still throw them in prison.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Try throwing Putin into prison. That's the kind of threat model at stake here. Another Putin emerging. And this one may be much less predictable. If Satoshi were around, his opinion would carry weight. He's the spiritual leader and mysterious benefactor, the only person to have ever solved the byzantine generals problem with sybil resistance. If he spoke, people would listen more closely than to others. In fact, people are resisting change mostly because they want to stick to satoshi's original vision. So he is speaking to us, in a way, by saying nothing. That's him communicating his vision to us, and us agreeing with it. If he were still around, he might very well say "I only did that to ensure the network stayed healthy! We still have an endgame to think about! The miners will eventually run out of coins to mine, and it's in our interests to continue the status quo rather than degenerate into that world."
  - jstanley 9y ago
    > Try throwing Putin into prison. You can't thrown Putin in prison because he's not a resident of a country you control. Likewise, you can't steal his money, even under the current system. Can we present the argument without appealing to a fear of the evil Russian boogeymen?

jstanley 9y ago

Why would it make any difference if Satoshi were still around? He can't make arbitrary changes to the consensus rules any more easily than anyone else can. And you might not be able to take money away from the powerful, but you can still throw them in prison.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Try throwing Putin into prison. That's the kind of threat model at stake here. Another Putin emerging. And this one may be much less predictable. If Satoshi were around, his opinion would carry weight. He's the spiritual leader and mysterious benefactor, the only person to have ever solved the byzantine generals problem with sybil resistance. If he spoke, people would listen more closely than to others. In fact, people are resisting change mostly because they want to stick to satoshi's original vision. So he is speaking to us, in a way, by saying nothing. That's him communicating his vision to us, and us agreeing with it. If he were still around, he might very well say "I only did that to ensure the network stayed healthy! We still have an endgame to think about! The miners will eventually run out of coins to mine, and it's in our interests to continue the status quo rather than degenerate into that world."
- jstanley 9y ago
  > Try throwing Putin into prison. You can't thrown Putin in prison because he's not a resident of a country you control. Likewise, you can't steal his money, even under the current system. Can we present the argument without appealing to a fear of the evil Russian boogeymen?