{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining\n\u003e\u003e landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on\n\u003e\u003e agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e And that is a problem... why?\n\u003e\n\nIf miners need to form alliances of trusting each other's blocks without\nvalidation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I\nthink we have a system that is in direct conflict with the word\n\"permissionless\" that you use later.\n\n\n\u003e As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi's\n\u003e original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consensus,\n\u003e network. That is changing, and that is OK.\n\u003e\n\nSpecialization is perfectly fine.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, people would\n\u003e have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and \"things kept\n\u003e working\".\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can \"work\" with\n\u003e gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few blockchain validation\n\u003e services, the same few online wallets, and mining is done by a cartel that\n\u003e only allows joining after signing a contract so they can sue you if you\n\u003e create an invalid block. Do you think people will then agree that \"things\n\u003e got demonstratebly worse\"?\n\u003e\n\u003e Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.\n\u003e\nWhy is what you, personally, find interesting relevant?\n\u003e\n\nI find it interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about\ninnovation.\n\nI understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where\n\u003e everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash.\n\u003e\n\nThat is not true, I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave.\n\nI see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for\nworse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology\nbuilt on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully\ncentralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed,\nreliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on\nthe lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different\ntrade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.\n\nI think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of\n\u003e millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity\n\u003e for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what\n\u003e I find interesting.\n\u003e\n\nThat sounds amazing, but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can\nscale to hundreds of millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of\npermission-lessness and decentralization? I think we need low-trust\noff-chain systems and other innovations to make that happen.\n\n\n\u003e And I think the current \"demonstrably terrible\" Bitcoin system is still\n\u003e INCREDIBLY interesting.\n\u003e\n\nI'm happy for you, then.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/1128ad92/attachment.html\u003e"}