7 ms·

I also believe in Bitcoin, but there may be a case against legitimacy at this point in the game: future changes to the protocol might become subject to state sc

I also believe in Bitcoin, but there may be a case against legitimacy at this point in the game: future changes to the protocol might become subject to state scrutiny. Scenario: (a) Regulators approve Bitcoin for use in banking, let's say (b) Some change is proposed to the Bitcoin protocol, improving privacy (c) Regulated firms are not able to do proper KYC/AML stuff if the upgrade activates (d) Firms and regulators (and maybe legislators) push back against the upgrade Now you have core protocol changes subjected to the scrutiny of the broader political process, which would be a total nightmare and may permanently stop development of the protocol.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> core protocol changes subjected to the scrutiny of the broader political process, which would be a total nightmare and may permanently stop development of the protocol. It could be argued this would be a good thing. As it stands, if someone nabs your crypto you have no means of recourse, this is a bad thing.
- tobltobs 9y ago
  How do you want to solve this problem without giving up decentralization?
  - vkou 9y ago
    The answer is that you can't, but that's not an answer liked by the people who: 1. Are optimistic about bitcoin. 2. Want to see it be useful for something besides speculation.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash, which Bitcoin seeks to mimic properties of. Do you make the same arguments against physical cash, or is there some other substantive difference, are you singling out Bitcoin?
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash People don't speculate in physical cash. Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. It also makes things like cameras useful.
        SilasX 9y ago
        I don't see the relevance of those points to the distinctions being made on this thread?
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        The amount of time the average person holds cash is small. It is held for transactional purposes. Investments, on the other hand, are held for long periods and not necessarily closely watched. (Most people also have more in investments than petty cash.) TL; DR The risks associated with cash are acceptable for a transactional medium; less so for an investment (hence the decline of bearer bonds in common use).
        SilasX 9y ago
        Yes, I understand the difference between the uses of cash and investments. To repeat, I was asking you to relate it to the earlier discussion. To summarize, it went like this: A: Regulator influence on Bitcoin would be good, as it makes theft easier to reverse. B: But how would you do that while keeping the decentralization? C: You can't. But no one likes to hear that if they're optimistic about Bitcoin and think it can be use outside of speculation. Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue, with the same tradeoff against centralization. What's the difference? I was asking how your comment was relevant to that exchange, not for a second way to restate what you already said. I was confused because your followup comment did not have any clear relationship to that exchange, about the tradeoffs between utility, reversibility, and decentralization. To quote your comment, with remarks about the relevance: >People don't speculate in physical cash. How is it relevant that people don't speculate in physical cash? The fact that people don't speculation in physical cash doesn't mean people only speculate in Bitcoin.[1] >Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. How is it relevant that cash has this constraint? That would be a point in favor of bitcoin in the context of the above discussion, and would lower the burden for proving utility. >It also makes things like cameras useful. I don't see the relevance of this either. So, again, I'm asking how your comment relates to the discussion that just happened. It seemed like you were just dropping in to make a general "why bitcoin is bad" argument, which is why I asked how the comment was relevant. I still don't see it. Can I assume there was no relationship, and you just saw it as an opportunity to say why bitcoin compares favorably to cash? [1] The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation, which would be assuming your conclusion.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I don't. I'm pro-centralisation in the sense that it comes with regulatory protections that are a net good for the average person, in my opinion. If decentralisation comes with the risks that cryptocurrencies presently present, I'm not really interested.
    - clarkmoody 9y ago
      The most important aspect of cryptocurrency is censorship-resistance, accomplished through decentralization. Reading your comment, I don't know why you would be interested in cryptocurrency at all.
mihaifm 9y ago
Ultimately I think that's one the big issues with crypto. Even though most altcoins boast decentralization, their development is only controlled by a few people who have commit rights to the git repository. When someone disagrees with them, it usually ends up in forking a new currency. Perhaps someone with more experience in the crypto space can shed some light on this...is there a way to truly decentralize development as well?
- cdiddy2 9y ago
  The only coin really trying to tackle this governance problem is Cardano in my opinion. Charles Hoskinson does a great job explaining their goals with this. https://youtu.be/Ja9D0kpksxw?t=33m39s https://youtu.be/Ja9D0kpksxw?t=33m39s https://youtu.be/cfD6efJ7KHA?t=9m56s https://youtu.be/cfD6efJ7KHA?t=9m56s
  - Forbo 9y ago
    Both Decred and Gridcoin have governance voting built in.
    - xur17 9y ago
      And Tezos.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

> core protocol changes subjected to the scrutiny of the broader political process, which would be a total nightmare and may permanently stop development of the protocol. It could be argued this would be a good thing. As it stands, if someone nabs your crypto you have no means of recourse, this is a bad thing.

tobltobs 9y ago
How do you want to solve this problem without giving up decentralization?
- vkou 9y ago
  The answer is that you can't, but that's not an answer liked by the people who: 1. Are optimistic about bitcoin. 2. Want to see it be useful for something besides speculation.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash, which Bitcoin seeks to mimic properties of. Do you make the same arguments against physical cash, or is there some other substantive difference, are you singling out Bitcoin?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash People don't speculate in physical cash. Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. It also makes things like cameras useful.
      - SilasX 9y ago
        I don't see the relevance of those points to the distinctions being made on this thread?
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        The amount of time the average person holds cash is small. It is held for transactional purposes. Investments, on the other hand, are held for long periods and not necessarily closely watched. (Most people also have more in investments than petty cash.) TL; DR The risks associated with cash are acceptable for a transactional medium; less so for an investment (hence the decline of bearer bonds in common use).
        SilasX 9y ago
        Yes, I understand the difference between the uses of cash and investments. To repeat, I was asking you to relate it to the earlier discussion. To summarize, it went like this: A: Regulator influence on Bitcoin would be good, as it makes theft easier to reverse. B: But how would you do that while keeping the decentralization? C: You can't. But no one likes to hear that if they're optimistic about Bitcoin and think it can be use outside of speculation. Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue, with the same tradeoff against centralization. What's the difference? I was asking how your comment was relevant to that exchange, not for a second way to restate what you already said. I was confused because your followup comment did not have any clear relationship to that exchange, about the tradeoffs between utility, reversibility, and decentralization. To quote your comment, with remarks about the relevance: >People don't speculate in physical cash. How is it relevant that people don't speculate in physical cash? The fact that people don't speculation in physical cash doesn't mean people only speculate in Bitcoin.[1] >Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. How is it relevant that cash has this constraint? That would be a point in favor of bitcoin in the context of the above discussion, and would lower the burden for proving utility. >It also makes things like cameras useful. I don't see the relevance of this either. So, again, I'm asking how your comment relates to the discussion that just happened. It seemed like you were just dropping in to make a general "why bitcoin is bad" argument, which is why I asked how the comment was relevant. I still don't see it. Can I assume there was no relationship, and you just saw it as an opportunity to say why bitcoin compares favorably to cash? [1] The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation, which would be assuming your conclusion.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I don't. I'm pro-centralisation in the sense that it comes with regulatory protections that are a net good for the average person, in my opinion. If decentralisation comes with the risks that cryptocurrencies presently present, I'm not really interested.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    The most important aspect of cryptocurrency is censorship-resistance, accomplished through decentralization. Reading your comment, I don't know why you would be interested in cryptocurrency at all.

mihaifm 9y ago

Ultimately I think that's one the big issues with crypto. Even though most altcoins boast decentralization, their development is only controlled by a few people who have commit rights to the git repository. When someone disagrees with them, it usually ends up in forking a new currency. Perhaps someone with more experience in the crypto space can shed some light on this...is there a way to truly decentralize development as well?

cdiddy2 9y ago
The only coin really trying to tackle this governance problem is Cardano in my opinion. Charles Hoskinson does a great job explaining their goals with this. https://youtu.be/Ja9D0kpksxw?t=33m39s https://youtu.be/Ja9D0kpksxw?t=33m39s https://youtu.be/cfD6efJ7KHA?t=9m56s https://youtu.be/cfD6efJ7KHA?t=9m56s
- Forbo 9y ago
  Both Decred and Gridcoin have governance voting built in.
  - xur17 9y ago
    And Tezos.