3 ms·

lack of any kind of control Multiple choice question: Which of the following groups have lots of control over BTC? A. BTC Core Developers B. BTC Exchanges C

by 300bps 5y ago

lack of any kind of control Multiple choice question: Which of the following groups have lots of control over BTC? A. BTC Core Developers B. BTC Exchanges C. Credit Card Processors/ACH Entities/Payment apps that allow people to buy BTC from fiat without exchanging physical cash D. BTC Miners E. Any judge in the country that can order you to hand over your BTC just like he/she can order you to dig up the cash he/she suspects you have and hand it over. F. All of the above and many more (It's F)

baby 5y ago
Proof that it’s F is that the protocol is extremely slow to change.
jasode 5y ago
I understand your larger point but to be fair to gp you're responding to, he was scoping the word "control" to Central Bank since he actually wrote: >and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank. So central bank control would be something like "expansion of money supply beyond 21 million bitcoins". Therefore, your options (B) Coinbase/Binance (C) Visa/MC/banks and (E) courts -- really have no "control" over that "central bankish" aspect. EDIT reply to: >Central banks [...] don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves. The Federal Reserve (central bank) in USA is the entity that adjusts the fractional reserve requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requir... > The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale. It could theoretically be done but it would require the coordination of the Bitcoin developers + miners + node validators. A crypto-exchange like Coinbase can't do it. As a previous case study, Coinbase was part of the group that aligned with majority miners to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase the block size -- but all that influence and miner support still couldn't get the Bitcoin network to adopt it.
- lottin 5y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of how the money supply works. Central banks have a legal monopoly on the issuance of currency, but they don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves. Over 80% of the money in circulation is created in this way by commercial banks. And this applies to bitcoin as well. Crypto-exchanges can expand the supply of any crypto-currency by creating deposits that aren't fully backed with reserves. The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale.
disruptalot 5y ago
Do you have any examples of any of the parties you listed successfully exercising their power against the protocol? Sure anyone can affect anything but how did any of them selfishly affect the fundamental properties of the protocol?
- 300bps 5y ago
  Are you aware of BCH, BSV and ETC?
  - not_really 5y ago
    Ironically I think ETC is the only network here that proves your point, and I think most people would agree that the reasoning for moving to ETH was fair. BCH and BSV are scam attempts, and I wouldn't say they've been successful.
    - 300bps 5y ago
      Funny that BCH and BSV claim that it’s BTC that are the scammers. The BSV folks are particularly vocal that BTC is a fraud. I have a friend of mine that retired at 40 from working at a hedge fund and investing his personal money well. Bought an 80 acre farm, has a bunch of a horses, a wife 20 years younger than him and three kids. He’s literally the smartest person I know and he believes Craig is Satoshi and that BSV is the best investment to come along since AMZN. I don’t get it - Craig Wright seems like a con artist to me and I’ve spent a ton of time looking into it.

by 300bps 5y ago

baby 5y ago

Proof that it’s F is that the protocol is extremely slow to change.

jasode 5y ago

I understand your larger point but to be fair to gp you're responding to, he was scoping the word "control" to Central Bank since he actually wrote: >and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank. So central bank control would be something like "expansion of money supply beyond 21 million bitcoins". Therefore, your options (B) Coinbase/Binance (C) Visa/MC/banks and (E) courts -- really have no "control" over that "central bankish" aspect. EDIT reply to: >Central banks [...] don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves. The Federal Reserve (central bank) in USA is the entity that adjusts the fractional reserve requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requir... > The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale. It could theoretically be done but it would require the coordination of the Bitcoin developers + miners + node validators. A crypto-exchange like Coinbase can't do it. As a previous case study, Coinbase was part of the group that aligned with majority miners to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase the block size -- but all that influence and miner support still couldn't get the Bitcoin network to adopt it.

lottin 5y ago
This is a misunderstanding of how the money supply works. Central banks have a legal monopoly on the issuance of currency, but they don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves. Over 80% of the money in circulation is created in this way by commercial banks. And this applies to bitcoin as well. Crypto-exchanges can expand the supply of any crypto-currency by creating deposits that aren't fully backed with reserves. The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale.

disruptalot 5y ago

Do you have any examples of any of the parties you listed successfully exercising their power against the protocol? Sure anyone can affect anything but how did any of them selfishly affect the fundamental properties of the protocol?

300bps 5y ago
Are you aware of BCH, BSV and ETC?
- not_really 5y ago
  Ironically I think ETC is the only network here that proves your point, and I think most people would agree that the reasoning for moving to ETH was fair. BCH and BSV are scam attempts, and I wouldn't say they've been successful.
  - 300bps 5y ago
    Funny that BCH and BSV claim that it’s BTC that are the scammers. The BSV folks are particularly vocal that BTC is a fraud. I have a friend of mine that retired at 40 from working at a hedge fund and investing his personal money well. Bought an 80 acre farm, has a bunch of a horses, a wife 20 years younger than him and three kids. He’s literally the smartest person I know and he believes Craig is Satoshi and that BSV is the best investment to come along since AMZN. I don’t get it - Craig Wright seems like a con artist to me and I’ve spent a ton of time looking into it.