On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:

What puzzles me about these discussions is that people assume, with no evidence and apparently for no reason, that Satoshi would choose to play his (or her, or their) so-called "Trump Card" in some way that agrees with their own particular agenda.

A general theme is that large holders (or whoever might have stolen or other access to stashes) can influence outcomes. It's *not* meant to insinue or comment on "Satoshi" proper, but to highlight possible X factors present in various coinbases. Founders archives, rich lists, combined with how a coin can be used or influenced, can all be places to look for them. Emergence of DC's themselves is steeped in crypto "anarchism possible" activism. Participants (minimally investors) in any cryptocurrency would be nuts to not consider them if present. 1M BTC plus rich list are a present and non-negligible factor. ex: Corporate SEC prospectus filings routinely cover risks.

The Satoshi I remember would be evaluating the alternatives pretty much objectively, and relating them to the current problems rather than the problems faced by the original design. And might choose either, based on its merits.

Or might choose to develop and propose other new technical solutions from time to time. Or play cards, even counter to presumed agenda, for fun. Any rebirth will be interesting. Yes many are quite objective solution finders, evaluators, and choosers.

They are considering the incentives of the users, when in fact the fate of a block chain is determined by the incentives of the miners.

No. Blockchains are multi-variable, all variables and parties affect the others. Users control miners just as much as miners control users, as do relays, as do markets, etc. All must cooperate at least somewhat if any are to survive, and complete loss of any one will kill.

The fact that the interests of miners and users are not necessarily aligned, I have always regarded as one of Bitcoin's flaws.

Comparative designs - that encourage / permit / require / result in, say, competitive exploitation (optimization?) of the other variables... vs - that somehow proffer result in a naturally harmonious / immune to <whatever "evil"> seeking / mutually upwardly beneficial / aligned and happy... Yes would be interesting.