rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04 📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining >> landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on >> agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation. >> > And that is a problem... why? > If miners need to form alliances of trusting each other's blocks without validation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I think we have a system that is in direct conflict with the word "permissionless" that you use later. > As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi's > original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consensus, > network. That is changing, and that is OK. > Specialization is perfectly fine. > > I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, people would > have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "things kept > working". > > I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can "work" with > gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few blockchain validation > services, the same few online wallets, and mining is done by a cartel that > only allows joining after signing a contract so they can sue you if you > create an invalid block. Do you think people will then agree that "things > got demonstratebly worse"? > > Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please. > Why is what you, personally, find interesting relevant? > I find it interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about innovation. I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where > everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash. > That is not true, I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave. I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one. I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of > millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity > for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what > I find interesting. > That sounds amazing, but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can scale to hundreds of millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of permission-lessness and decentralization? I think we need low-trust off-chain systems and other innovations to make that happen. > And I think the current "demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still > INCREDIBLY interesting. > I'm happy for you, then. -- Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/1128ad92/attachment.html>