3 ms·

> I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops function

> I brought the satellites up specifically because your parent comment said that "with an unstable power grid or disrupted Internet, the currency stops functioning" which they render false. I don't know, I would say that a globally connected network that digitally transmits information is effectively an internet regardless of whether it is transmitting data over ocean cables, satellite connections, telephone lines, or pigeons. I disagree that a satellite system changes anything about that point; technically I guess it's different, but it feels a lot like quibbling over linguistic technicalities when the actual meat here -- that transactions require global consensus and network connectivity -- is unchanged. And to be honest, even that linguistic distinction feels slightly like an "in theory" argument anyway, because Blockstream doesn't appear to be a separate self-contained network, the most charitable interpretation of the system I can see is that it is a bridge to the Internet to increase connectivity. Blockstream does not get rid of the requirement to get transactions onto the Internet, it just provides a way to sync the blockchain to places that don't have direct access. I still think it's accurate to say that transactions on Bitcoin must be synced over the Internet with the entire network. Many miners are only connecting to the network through the Internet, and Blockstream is still ultimately going to be synchronizing with those miners. If I hand someone a piece of paper describing the transaction I want them to perform, and then they drive to their house and log into their computer and perform the transaction for me, my take would be that we have not actually gotten rid of the Internet requirement. Delegating transactions or providing bridged access to the network does not mean that Internet access is not still ultimately a requirement for transactions, or at least that's the way that I interpret an Internet requirement.

greyface- 3y ago
You're right, this does seem like semantic quibbling. What sort of scenario are you worried about, that would cause both the terrestrial and satellite Internet (including, as you wish, Blockstream's satellites) to become globally partitioned? You previously stated that vulnerability to such a scenario made it a bad currency.
- danShumway 3y ago
  The scenario I'm thinking about is the one that superkuh brings up above: > The USA could be gone and bitcoin would still work. An event that caused the USA to dissolve would likely signal a network disruption on such a level that satellite access or maintenance could not be guaranteed and that global Internet access might feasibly be partitioned or disrupted (or could fail completely given the amount of international cooperation involved in maintaining the Internet). In addition to potentially breaking access to the network (or damaging the network to such a high degree that it ceased to be a global network), a disruption of that scale could also basically break mining given the amount of mining that is localized within the US. Or substitute China if you want. It's not clear to me that Blockstream's satellites or general satellite Internet would be sufficient for mining pools even if they were sufficient for signaling transactions to the Internet. ---- On a less catastrophic level, power also becomes a problem. I mentioned Gaza above, which currently has extremely limited access to electricity. It is hard to imagine maintaining a mining pool or securing transactions in that environment. Satellite connections do obviously help with access in those limited situations, but people in those situations are relying on the majority of the mining pool and the network being centralized in stable locations with stable governments. In which case, I would question the currency's independence or reliability as a fallback currency during global financial collapse -- an event that would destabilize not just individual small pockets of users but the actual network itself. ---- It is definitely true that the scenario is unlikely, but if Bitcoin is being sold by people like superkuh as if it is a disaster-proof security that could survive global financial collapse or the elimination of the USA... I don't think it would survive that. To be fair, that's not necessarily the thing that makes it a bad currency though, you're right to point that out. The reliance on connectivity does make it a bad currency but not because I'm worried about the Internet vanishing, more because the reliance on global consensus makes it slow and inconvenient to use for everyday transactions. The disaster stuff is largely just an imagined scenario and there's no reason why a "good" currency needs to be disaster-proof in order to be useful. But if that imagined scenario is being used as a selling point for the coin (which I think superkuh was doing), that's when I start to take issue with it.

greyface- 3y ago

You're right, this does seem like semantic quibbling. What sort of scenario are you worried about, that would cause both the terrestrial and satellite Internet (including, as you wish, Blockstream's satellites) to become globally partitioned? You previously stated that vulnerability to such a scenario made it a bad currency.

danShumway 3y ago
The scenario I'm thinking about is the one that superkuh brings up above: > The USA could be gone and bitcoin would still work. An event that caused the USA to dissolve would likely signal a network disruption on such a level that satellite access or maintenance could not be guaranteed and that global Internet access might feasibly be partitioned or disrupted (or could fail completely given the amount of international cooperation involved in maintaining the Internet). In addition to potentially breaking access to the network (or damaging the network to such a high degree that it ceased to be a global network), a disruption of that scale could also basically break mining given the amount of mining that is localized within the US. Or substitute China if you want. It's not clear to me that Blockstream's satellites or general satellite Internet would be sufficient for mining pools even if they were sufficient for signaling transactions to the Internet. ---- On a less catastrophic level, power also becomes a problem. I mentioned Gaza above, which currently has extremely limited access to electricity. It is hard to imagine maintaining a mining pool or securing transactions in that environment. Satellite connections do obviously help with access in those limited situations, but people in those situations are relying on the majority of the mining pool and the network being centralized in stable locations with stable governments. In which case, I would question the currency's independence or reliability as a fallback currency during global financial collapse -- an event that would destabilize not just individual small pockets of users but the actual network itself. ---- It is definitely true that the scenario is unlikely, but if Bitcoin is being sold by people like superkuh as if it is a disaster-proof security that could survive global financial collapse or the elimination of the USA... I don't think it would survive that. To be fair, that's not necessarily the thing that makes it a bad currency though, you're right to point that out. The reliance on connectivity does make it a bad currency but not because I'm worried about the Internet vanishing, more because the reliance on global consensus makes it slow and inconvenient to use for everyday transactions. The disaster stuff is largely just an imagined scenario and there's no reason why a "good" currency needs to be disaster-proof in order to be useful. But if that imagined scenario is being used as a selling point for the coin (which I think superkuh was doing), that's when I start to take issue with it.