3 ms·

Of course, but specifically by maintaining custody over those users funds. And increasing the hardware requirements to have full custody of your own funds nudg

by treyd 3y ago

Of course, but specifically by maintaining custody over those users funds. And increasing the hardware requirements to have full custody of your own funds nudges users in the direction of delegating it to massive corporations. Also you're arguing along the lines of "the original plan" is just doing unfounded originalism. Satoshi had lots of bad ideas, there's no reason people should try to embody/achieve all the ideas of someone just because he had one good idea. Which of the claims I made do you think is disingenuous?

ETH_start 3y ago
No, exchanges and block explorers benefit from growth in usage regardless of whether self-custody is the norm or not. You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.
- treyd 3y ago
  > You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client. > as all facts indicate the contrary. This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    It's disingenuous because there are multiple extremely plausible explanations for them wanting larger blocks, while you imply that your theory that their motivation is that want people to give up custody is the only one. >>This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. It's not hard to determine where majority sentiment lay when: * the largest Bitcoin forum in the world had to resort to censorship to prevent the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT * practically every major Bitcoin firm expressed support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. * the vast majority of mining power expressed support for larger blocks. >And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. Because you think Bitcoin becoming widely adopted would lead to the decline of USD dominance, and with it, geopolitical stability? If you oppose Bitcoin mass-adoption, you should admit it instead engaging in attempts to manipulate public opinion with fearmongering about decentralization.
    - treyd 3y ago
      There exists evidence that there was paid shills brigading /r/Bitcoin to try to shift the narrative. Reddit accounts are not a proxy for legitimate users. The rest of your points are ignoring the realities of corporate strategy in an unregulated market. Now you're also putting words in my mouth like I'm part of some kind of conspiracy.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        What evidence? Please produce this evidence. If never seen any such evidence, and I've debated the r/Bitcoin forum's censorship countless times. Banning all discussion about an issue forum is censorship, no matter the excuse. Numerous long-time r/Bitcoin members were banned for promoting the BitcoinXT hard fork. They weren't paid shills. They were people who disagreed with Theymos and were banned accordingly. Your arguments don't make sense and seem to be made in bad faith. It seems more likely you think Bitcoin mass-adoption would be socially harmful. If that's the case, you should admit that.

by treyd 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

No, exchanges and block explorers benefit from growth in usage regardless of whether self-custody is the norm or not. You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.

treyd 3y ago
> You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client. > as all facts indicate the contrary. This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  It's disingenuous because there are multiple extremely plausible explanations for them wanting larger blocks, while you imply that your theory that their motivation is that want people to give up custody is the only one. >>This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. It's not hard to determine where majority sentiment lay when: * the largest Bitcoin forum in the world had to resort to censorship to prevent the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT * practically every major Bitcoin firm expressed support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. * the vast majority of mining power expressed support for larger blocks. >And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. Because you think Bitcoin becoming widely adopted would lead to the decline of USD dominance, and with it, geopolitical stability? If you oppose Bitcoin mass-adoption, you should admit it instead engaging in attempts to manipulate public opinion with fearmongering about decentralization.
  - treyd 3y ago
    There exists evidence that there was paid shills brigading /r/Bitcoin to try to shift the narrative. Reddit accounts are not a proxy for legitimate users. The rest of your points are ignoring the realities of corporate strategy in an unregulated market. Now you're also putting words in my mouth like I'm part of some kind of conspiracy.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      What evidence? Please produce this evidence. If never seen any such evidence, and I've debated the r/Bitcoin forum's censorship countless times. Banning all discussion about an issue forum is censorship, no matter the excuse. Numerous long-time r/Bitcoin members were banned for promoting the BitcoinXT hard fork. They weren't paid shills. They were people who disagreed with Theymos and were banned accordingly. Your arguments don't make sense and seem to be made in bad faith. It seems more likely you think Bitcoin mass-adoption would be socially harmful. If that's the case, you should admit that.