3 ms·

> The whole innovation behind Bitcoin is to eliminate the need for trust in a centralized entity Err, nope. That's the scam. A blockchain is a kind of databa

> The whole innovation behind Bitcoin is to eliminate the need for trust in a centralized entity Err, nope. That's the scam. A blockchain is a kind of database which requires no single machine to be nominated as the single-source-of-truth. that's it. This has nothing to do with centralisation, power, trust, or anything of that kind. The sense of "centralisation" in blockchain means computer network centralisation, as in how one connects databases. And "trust" in the sense that entries in that database are "reliable" in some academic sense. This has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating the need for "trust in centralised entities" -- such a claim is not only absurd, but the premise of a scam. A scam which continues to be perpetrated. And this article participates.

olalonde 4y ago
If "eliminating the need for trust in centralised entities" is an absurd claim and a lie, then it follows that there exists a centralized entity you need to trust to use Bitcoin. What is that centralized entity? PS: When people say that Bitcoin is decentralized, they also mean it in the colloquial sense, not only in the CS academic jargon. Entities like PayPal or the Federal Reserve Bank are centralized and require trust. They have to be run by trusted people. In contrast, Bitcoin isn't run by anyone. It is governed by a protocol which is mostly set in stone. No centralized party can suddenly decide to "print" more Bitcoin or freeze accounts. This is what people mean.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  No, that doesnt follow. But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. If BTC is suppose to be money, then it's supposed to be a system for book-keeping aggregate promises across the global collective of human beings. The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. The networking sense of "centralisation" which applies to blockchain is a pun. It's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with any of this. It could be called, "wide-broadcast machine signalling"
  - olalonde 4y ago
    > But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? > Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? Transacting on the Bitcoin network: sending BTC from one party to another. There are more than two mining companies, otherwise Bitcoin's security model fails (see 51% attack). Of course, centralized exchanges are... centralized. > And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? When people say that Bitcoin doesn't require trust, they don't mean that nothing requires trust anymore. They just mean that they don't have to trust a centralized party to run the Bitcoin network, because there is no such entity. Beyond that, you indeed still need to trust the people you transact with or trust that you will be able to sue them if they scam you, etc. > And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Yes. > Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. Yes it is. Even before Bitcoin, (de)centralization was used to contrast fiat money vs commodity money. > The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. Yes. There is a risk that the use of Bitcoin could be outlawed by some governments, although it would be difficult to enforce in practice.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centralised" nor "decentralised". It isnt the kind of thing which could be either *in the relevant sense of the word*. When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Bitcoin is as centralised *a system* as any which exist, and much much more so than paper money. This idea that you can send a signal betweeen two machines you own and make some changes to your wallet is a gross misdirection. That has nothing to do with any of the value props of crypto. It has no economic or political meaning. It's purely a technical property of the technology.

olalonde 4y ago

If "eliminating the need for trust in centralised entities" is an absurd claim and a lie, then it follows that there exists a centralized entity you need to trust to use Bitcoin. What is that centralized entity? PS: When people say that Bitcoin is decentralized, they also mean it in the colloquial sense, not only in the CS academic jargon. Entities like PayPal or the Federal Reserve Bank are centralized and require trust. They have to be run by trusted people. In contrast, Bitcoin isn't run by anyone. It is governed by a protocol which is mostly set in stone. No centralized party can suddenly decide to "print" more Bitcoin or freeze accounts. This is what people mean.

mjburgess 4y ago
No, that doesnt follow. But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. If BTC is suppose to be money, then it's supposed to be a system for book-keeping aggregate promises across the global collective of human beings. The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. The networking sense of "centralisation" which applies to blockchain is a pun. It's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with any of this. It could be called, "wide-broadcast machine signalling"
- olalonde 4y ago
  > But in any case, what is "using" bitcoin? > Is it purchasing bitcoin? ...how do I do that? I'd need to rely on the two mining companies, right? And the exchanges? Or not? Transacting on the Bitcoin network: sending BTC from one party to another. There are more than two mining companies, otherwise Bitcoin's security model fails (see 51% attack). Of course, centralized exchanges are... centralized. > And can I use bitcoin as currency in any shop? No? If I could, I'd be relying on the state to provide the same rights behind all economic transactions to enable, that right? When people say that Bitcoin doesn't require trust, they don't mean that nothing requires trust anymore. They just mean that they don't have to trust a centralized party to run the Bitcoin network, because there is no such entity. Beyond that, you indeed still need to trust the people you transact with or trust that you will be able to sue them if they scam you, etc. > And what happens if the handful of "wales" decide to off-load their coins in the middle of my negotiation when I'm buying my tesla... suddenly, all my deflationary currency has been magically radically inflated by a cabal of SV billionaires. Yes. > Money isnt the kind of thing that "centralisation" even applies to in any coherent sense. Yes it is. Even before Bitcoin, (de)centralization was used to contrast fiat money vs commodity money. > The value of money, it's "use" in any sense, is subject to provision of economic systems by central authorities, and subject to wild forces of decentralisation and centralisation. Yes. There is a risk that the use of Bitcoin could be outlawed by some governments, although it would be difficult to enforce in practice.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centralised" nor "decentralised". It isnt the kind of thing which could be either *in the relevant sense of the word*. When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Bitcoin is as centralised *a system* as any which exist, and much much more so than paper money. This idea that you can send a signal betweeen two machines you own and make some changes to your wallet is a gross misdirection. That has nothing to do with any of the value props of crypto. It has no economic or political meaning. It's purely a technical property of the technology.