<unnamed>

Public Key

npub165cz97uf69xr6av492gc8pq6t4cjnh4fxlzplv7g68cvx3jwqgrsasale4

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsd2vpzlwyaznpawk2j4yvrssd96uffm65n03qlk0ydruxrge8qypcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqnppdzh

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:38:40 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-31
📝 Original message:On 2015-08-31 21:54, Justus Ranvier wrote:
>
> You keep using the word "decentralized" without explaining (and most
> likely, understanding) what it means.
>
Decentralization is a ubiquitous term within the Bitcoin, and the
definition is by no measure new or often confused. It is realizing
that systems involving trusted third parties have undesirable
properties, be it regarding privacy, fraud, censorship, and removing
the effect of them as much as is physically possible. WASTE and
RetroShare are examples of decentralized messaging and file
distribution systems, acknowledging the privacy problems involved with
centralized systems like AOL Instant Messenger or IRC.
> What does it mean to use a decentralized network instead of a trusted
> third party to process electronic payments? What undesirable actions
> can
> a trusted third party perform that a decentralized network can not
> perform?
>
Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the
ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
any particular party. Users can independently verify that
transactions they receive are valid and confirmed, with strong
confidence that they can not be reversed or modified. A third party
does not hold these same properties, there is no reason to believe the
information they present other than trust they will not lie, cheat, or
violate privacy at their own will. Given information by a trusted
third party (such as a balance or existance of transaction), a person
has no ability to independently validate their claims as you do in a
decentralized system.

2023-06-07 17:38:40 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-31
📝 Original message:On 2015-08-31 21:24, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It
> is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
>
The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it. What is
described in the whitepaper is a system without the trust of third
parties to process electronic payments, this can not exist without
decentralization. Absent any unforseen revelations this is a
requirement rather than a suggestion or fleeting fancy. Below a
decentralized Bitcoin you are free to make systems as centralized as
you please without affecting the parent, below a centralized Bitcoin
there is no room to make it less. We really only have one shot at a
properly bootstrapped, decentralized currency, and it would be a great
shame to mess up the one we have with hasty decision making for
unclear goals.

2023-06-07 17:38:39 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-31
📝 Original message:On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> You don't understand what value proof of work provides, or what
> features
> differentiate good money from poor money, and you can't make a
> defensible statement of Bitcoin's value proposition.
>
> Because you can't do these things, you assume nobody else can do them
> either and therefore the only way for Bitcoin to survive is to sweep
> the
> problem under the rug and distract users with a word that means nothing
> (and therefore means whatever the observer wants it to mean).
>
> This is not a strategy that can be successful in the long term.
Proof of work is probabilistic transaction ordering (and timestamping
by extension), the only perceivable value in it is that it is
decentralized. If you don't have that set as a requirement there are
plenty of companies around who will act as a time stamping notary for
you, just as there are many cloud services around to host the SQL-
based Bitcoin replacement.

2023-06-07 17:38:38 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-31
📝 Original message:On 2015-08-31 19:11, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think your summary of what people actually want from
> decentralisation is pretty good, Justus.
>
>
>> I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares
>> about decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define
>> that term.
>
> +1 Insightful
>
What is Bitcoin if not decentralized?
Bitcoin the most awkward, unprivate and damaging currencies ever
created. It is terribly slow for general use, and it is very
difficult for users to get over the technical hurdles required to use
it safety. It is simultaneously the least private payment system ever
conceived for general use, yet still manages to consistently help
terrorists and pedophiles. Over half a gigawatt of power is used to
power the miners which timestamp the network, causing hundreds of
millions of tonnes of CO2 and radioactive particles to be spewed into
the atmosphere.
Perhaps we can justify these damages as the cost of decentralization,
similar to one justifying the tor anonymity network as having
significant positive effects outweighing the negative. However if you
are truly willing to give the goal of absolute decentralization up as
unachievable or unrealistic, it would be much more sensible to replace
the entire Bitcoin network with a couple of geographically distributed
SQL servers and call it a day.
Without decentralization as an ultimate goal, Bitcoin is an
abomination that is best dismantled.