4 ms·

The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. Cryptokitties can manipul

The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. Cryptokitties can manipulate their contract, so in that case it is true a central authority is in control. Even though Bitcoin has been around 10 years there is still a lot of development and people are still figuring out how to approach this type of thing. The obvious answer is to start with a central contract and have a mechanism to slowly decentralize or remove ownership. It’s going to take time to get it right but it will happen (and even cryptokitties can upgrade their contract to include this logic).

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The question is why it's the right choice for the underlying blockchains not to have a central authority. There are costs and benefits to decentralization, and I've very rarely seen a blockchain startup weigh the two rather than just touting the benefits. (I know this is a high standard for any new technology; I'm not saying I expect it on the front page of their website.)
grey-area 7y ago
The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. I disagree, they have plenty of pinch points which allow de facto control. The small group of core developers control the laws of the currency and directly tied to that its value. They can perform hard forks and change all the rules. The users have very little influence there. Exchanges control which currencies are popular, along with huge amounts of the money in circulation, and change things like deposit/withdraw rules arbitrarily. The miners can attack the currency to rewrite history (has been done), refuse to use new rules, or switch to a new currency. Many of the fundamental tenets of bitcoin as it started out (that most users will mine, that most users will take care of their own wallets) have been proven too optimistic when in widespread use. People just don't want decentralised things given the massive tradeoffs and the rewards of centralisation for companies are too great. I think blockchains like bitcoin are a very interesting experiment, and currencies will escape state control as nation states continue to wither away, but none of the current currencies is fit to take that role, nor was the pivot of startups to 'blockchains for...x' a good idea - it's a solution in search of a problem in most cases. We are unfortunately more likely to see a corporate currency or one from a superstate take that role than a decentralised one.
- yyyyip 7y ago
  If you (or anyone else) think you can effectively break bitcoin then there is a billion dollar bounty available to you in the form of a highly leveraged bitfinex short position.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Short positions on highly volatile (and probably manipulated) markets are extremely vulnerable to short squeezes. There's no good way to take out a leveraged short that's guaranteed to remain in place for, say, six months.
    - hollerith 7y ago
      Good to know, but just because any particular short position is not guaranteed to remain in place for six months doesn't mean there is no good way to profit from shorting Bitcoin.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        The problem is that a leveraged short position that is closed out/margin called can lose more money than you initially invested. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
- pilingual 7y ago
  Much of this comment is straw men (exchanges, miners, wallets). Anyone running a node can indeed decide what software they run. That’s exactly my point. There’s no such thing as “they” performing hard forks. Developers make decisions, sometimes they disagree and fork. Miners make decisions on which fork they want to run. Users are free to run a node. Generalizing “blockchains for x” doesn’t do much good. Sure there are terrible blockchain projects as there are terrible app ideas, but there are quite a few good projects out there. I’m a fan of Keep.network for example.
  - pjc50 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

The question is why it's the right choice for the underlying blockchains not to have a central authority. There are costs and benefits to decentralization, and I've very rarely seen a blockchain startup weigh the two rather than just touting the benefits. (I know this is a high standard for any new technology; I'm not saying I expect it on the front page of their website.)

grey-area 7y ago

The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. I disagree, they have plenty of pinch points which allow de facto control. The small group of core developers control the laws of the currency and directly tied to that its value. They can perform hard forks and change all the rules. The users have very little influence there. Exchanges control which currencies are popular, along with huge amounts of the money in circulation, and change things like deposit/withdraw rules arbitrarily. The miners can attack the currency to rewrite history (has been done), refuse to use new rules, or switch to a new currency. Many of the fundamental tenets of bitcoin as it started out (that most users will mine, that most users will take care of their own wallets) have been proven too optimistic when in widespread use. People just don't want decentralised things given the massive tradeoffs and the rewards of centralisation for companies are too great. I think blockchains like bitcoin are a very interesting experiment, and currencies will escape state control as nation states continue to wither away, but none of the current currencies is fit to take that role, nor was the pivot of startups to 'blockchains for...x' a good idea - it's a solution in search of a problem in most cases. We are unfortunately more likely to see a corporate currency or one from a superstate take that role than a decentralised one.

yyyyip 7y ago
If you (or anyone else) think you can effectively break bitcoin then there is a billion dollar bounty available to you in the form of a highly leveraged bitfinex short position.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Short positions on highly volatile (and probably manipulated) markets are extremely vulnerable to short squeezes. There's no good way to take out a leveraged short that's guaranteed to remain in place for, say, six months.
  - hollerith 7y ago
    Good to know, but just because any particular short position is not guaranteed to remain in place for six months doesn't mean there is no good way to profit from shorting Bitcoin.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The problem is that a leveraged short position that is closed out/margin called can lose more money than you initially invested. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
pilingual 7y ago
Much of this comment is straw men (exchanges, miners, wallets). Anyone running a node can indeed decide what software they run. That’s exactly my point. There’s no such thing as “they” performing hard forks. Developers make decisions, sometimes they disagree and fork. Miners make decisions on which fork they want to run. Users are free to run a node. Generalizing “blockchains for x” doesn’t do much good. Sure there are terrible blockchain projects as there are terrible app ideas, but there are quite a few good projects out there. I’m a fan of Keep.network for example.
- pjc50 7y ago