On 7/2/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
... So.. these points were already hard to argue against clearly. Then there's "we can scale externally".... The trouble is that there's so many ways, like pinning (sidechains/mastercoin), exclusively inter-institutional settlement, debt based moneys ("the bearer of this token is entitled to..."), and all of them could work! In fact, we could just abandon Bitcoin alltogether! ... And that's the core of my counterargument: we don't have to cripple Bitcoin, so let's not.
thank you for the patient summarization of many complex points of contention around this subject, including the social(market) aspects which may not come easy to a technical mind.
The Chinese mining pools stamping their document regarding increasing the blocksize to 8mb was extraordinary. They ignored Gavin's 20mb or anything proposal ("or anything" probably mostly to make 20mb seem reasonable). They stamped - a thing completely outdated in the West, yet common in Asia (and pretty badass). They are a group of Chinese making law for everyone.
speaking of "not much to do about it now..." :)
So - conclusively - Gavin is a hero, the Internet's retarded, Bitcoin is in policy jail but it likes it there. Oh, and the free-est market of the world is already significantly run by Chinese. If you read this far, thanks.
agreed. onward to proof of useful work! [sounds trivial, let's r/AskReddit! ...] best regards,