To be blunt, people want “authority” to exist because they themselves are immature cowards. They want an all-powerful entity to impose their will upon others. This takes different forms in different varieties of political advocacy, but the basic motivation is always the same. The “liberal” for example, resents reality. He does not want a world in which suffering and injustice are possible. But instead of doing what He can as a human being, he wants a “Government” to do it for him. He wants some magical entity to make sure that everyone, himself included, is fed, housed, and taken care of, no matter how lazy or irresponsible they are. Instead of trusting human beings to take care of each other, he wants a super human”authority” to guarantee housing, food, health care, and all sorts of other things, for everyone. He wants it so badly that he refuses to accept the obvious truth that no such guarantee is ever possible, and that if mere mortals do not take care of themselves and each other, nothing else will take care of them.“The Most Dangerous Superstition” – Larken Rose, pg. 124
How Coinbase views proof of work security
Great explanation on why ASICs and ASIC-friendly mining algorithms are actually good for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. ASIC-“resistant” coins are susceptible to attacks by anyone with general-purpose hardware.
hong kong micro-apartment by LAAB architects
to realize the client’s ambitious plans, the architects had to reconsider all traditional notions of residential living.
Is Big Tech Merging With Big Brother? Kinda Looks Like It
The Two Views Of Crypto: Sound Money Vs. Global Computer
On Rollo McFloogle’s response to Antony Zegers’ “Bitcoin Core Cargo Cult”
This is my response to the article On Antony Zegers’ “Bitcoin Core Cargo Cult”. I have enjoyed reading the article. The article mentions twice that Zegers’ arguments are a “red herring”, but I don’t see an explanation on why that is true. It’s very easy to dismiss an argument as a red herring without never explaining why.
Believers in a fixed block size appeal to consensus, but I argue that consensus is not a guarantee of good ideas. For instance, the general consensus, or what the majority of the people believe, is that we need government. As an anarchist, I know that thinking by oneself and governing oneself is by no means easy, but it is way more rewarding than being told what to do.
- A statist will say that we need government. The statist will also say that government is good because it is the consensus.
- A minarchist will say that government is a necessary evil (note the contradiction, as if evil could ever be necessary or desirable).
- An anarchist will say that government is an unavoidable evil.
Believers in fixed block size are right in that the 1 MB hard limit is the current consensus. But they miss that they are not just spectators, but also actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem. They choose supporting the status quo just for the sake of it, and then they justify their choice by saying that it is what the majority supports. That is circular reasoning.
The fixed blocksize believer is debating about what is. The dynamic blocksize proponent is debating about what could be. Without people thinking about what could be and acting on it, humanity would have not advanced a single bit.
I also think the statement that the Lightning network seems to be a better scaling solution is a fallacy. On-chain scaling doesn’t invalidate the Lightning network. I actually think that, in the long term, scaling will be achieved by a combination of both. Lightning, on its own, cannot provide the security and censorship resistance that proof of work provides. If a Lightning transaction is the same as a transaction on the blockchain, then, why is a blockchain even needed at all? Why not just use Ripple instead?
Moreover, there is no consensus among experts that Bitcoin cannot scale on-chain. Several experts say that Bitcoin can scale on-chain, and they have worked on identifying the existing bottlenecks and what optimizations need to be done to the Bitcoin software in order to scale on-chain without increasing linearly the resources (bandwidth, CPU, memory) needed. What happens is that those experts are working on their own projects, as their ideas are rejected by the Bitcoin Core community, and their work may go unnoticed among those who live in the Core echo chamber.
Bitcoin will (probably) always be the biggest cryptocurrency
What is then the reason that Bitcoin is still the non-contested leader? I believe that the reason is that, despite its current flaws, Bitcoin is providing utility for its users, mainly as store of value. I think that the value of a cryptocurrency comes from two components: its existing utility and the speculation on its future utility. Cryptocurrencies are currently in the speculative phase, where investors are mostly speculating about the future utility of each one of them. In the long term, a cryptocurrency must provide actual utility to justify its capitalization. With a 1 MB block, I believe the utility of Bitcoin will be very limited, as almost nobody will be able to write on the blockchain.
Altcoins are the testbed for new ideas. I think that Bitcoin will always remain the most capitalized cryptocurrency. Why? Because if any other cryptocurrency offers improvements over Bitcoin that are so dramatic that it threatens to overtake Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will copy those improvements and neuter the advantage of the competing coin. Bitcoin has the advantage of having the chain with the most cumulative proof of work, the most known brand and the biggest network effect. As defined on the Bitcoin whitepaper: “The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.” This means that any hard fork will be Bitcoin if it satisfies this condition, according to the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Core Cult is slowing the transition to a better monetary system and a better world
I acknowledge that Bitcoin is very resistant to change, and that can be both a good thing and a bad thing. It’s good because it can stop the spread of bad ideas. It’s bad because it slows innovation and adoption of Bitcoin.
I think that, fortunately, Bitcoin is resilient to agents and ideas that try to destroy it, even if those come from within the Bitcoin ecosystem. We will have to wait for more people to realize that 1 MB is just an arbitrary number and not the result of careful consideration after objective analysis.
I see Bitcoin as an embodiment of the collective consciousness of its holders. Bitcoin is just a tool, and it will only be as powerful as free are the minds of its holders. This is a battle about ideas. As long as the minds of the Bitcoin holders are indoctrinated into validating the status quo and not believing that a better world is possible and achievable, the impact of Bitcoin in society will be very limited.
Del billete de avión a tu Facebook: el registro de pasajeros español “viola tu privacidad”
¿Confiar tus desnudos a Facebook?
“Hay pocas pruebas que nos lleven a pensar que las prácticas de la NSA hayan servido para proteger a los ciudadanos y sí muchas de que han contribuido a que Internet sea un lugar más peligroso. La lección es clara: la mayoría de las veces, la privacidad es un medio para garantizar la seguridad, y las políticas que ponen en peligro la privacidad a menudo acaban minando también la seguridad. Por tanto, desconfíen de cualquier plan que pretenda sacrificar la privacidad en aras de la seguridad.”
“Nadie cuidará de su privacidad mejor que usted. Entre otras razones, porque nadie, excepto usted, tiene mucho que perder si se la arrebatan.”