4 ms·
Why don't they just say that and outline their criteria for decentralization
by mufti_menk 3y ago
Why don't they just say that and outline their criteria for decentralization
- siwatanejo 3y agoAnything other than bitcoin is centralized. (BTW, ETH is PoS so it's inherently centralized despite the number of validators.)
- rvnx 3y agoMoreover, anything running on code coming from a source-code repository that has majority influence from one organization is actually centralized
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoHow do you know what software people use? How people run asic miners? Is it supported by vanilla bitcoin too?
- mufti_menk 3y agoEven Monero?
- lawn 3y agoOf course not, Monero is as decentralized as they come. And with it's ASIC resistant POW it's arguably more decentralized than Bitcoin (and almost all other) POW based cryptocurrencies.
- username332211 3y agoSo, if I want to create a decentralized cryptocurrency what should I do? Name it "Bitcoin"?
- siwatanejo 3y agoIt is impossible to create a decentralized cryptocurrency because it has already been created.
- username332211 3y agoSo, the fact someone created something means you can't create another thing of the same nature. I hate to ask you that, but you're trolling, aren't you?
- siwatanejo 3y agoNo. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952101
- victorbjorklund 3y agoThat is a silly argument. Guess you also think there only exist one fiat currency because it already exists one so there can't be two of them?
- siwatanejo 3y agoThat is the silliest point of all, because the concept of fiat currency is inherently associated with its plurality (given that fiat currencies are born out of countries, and there are many countries), but cryptocurrency, as a concept, came to existence to destroy all fiat. And the only way to do that is via 1 single cryptocurrency: the very first, the only one. And this is better understood once you understand this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0300 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0300 (which is not activated yet, and might never be; but once you understand its purpose, you will understand this HN thread)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoI thought it's the opposite.
- etherael 3y agoBecause it's nonsense and if you wanted to actually lay out the criteria for this, it would be obvious. You'd have to start with "Who defines what BTC is" and the answer would be "one guy with commit access to the bitcoin core repo" and all pretense of "decentralization" disappears in a puff of vapour.
- mufti_menk 3y agoIf "one guy with commit access to the bitcoin core repo" pushed a change that wasn't in the interest of miners and heavily invested groups, why would they install it?
- etherael 3y agoBecause if they're not using the same node software as the exchanges, they can't trade with other people trading the BTC instrument. The exchanges allocated the BTC ticker to "whatever the bitcoin core node software says it is" and that is defined by the one guy who has commit access to the bitcoin core repo.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoIf the exchanges can't trade BTC mined by miners, they will do whatever miners do.
- etherael 3y agoWrong, because even if the exchanges pick a chain that is completely ridiculous in terms of rules, say they permanently limit the tx throughput for the entire world to 3, or something absurd like this, and the exchanges and users who can see how absurd this is sensibly opt out of mining or transacting on that chain, the profit for defecting is great, because mining is a zero sum game. As long as some suckers are trading actually liquid assets for the instruments on the sabotaged chain, it is economically rational for the miners to mindlessly rubberstamp the rules of the chain. Which is exactly what we have.
- unicornmama 3y agoBecause the SEC does not make laws, it only enforces them. Congress makes laws, the court system interprets and establishes precedent.