rich1.0npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3chttps://nostr.ae/npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19 📝 Original message:On 09/19/2015 12:57 AM, NxtChg wrote:> >> Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong >> central authority that you can resist it in direct physical >> confrontation. If you succeed at this, you are the threat. > > My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is: > > a) too important to close, Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that system as too important? Bitcoin cannot be both decentralized and reliant on being, "too important to close". If it can be closed there is insufficient decentralization. I was concerned that this was going off topic for a technical forum. However this is the central technical issue of Bitcoin. If one does not understand the threat then one cannot model it or design systems to defend against it. On the other hand, this is unfortunately not new territory, so I'll leave it at this, which is also not news to most of us... > b) able to provide adequate response to governments, like EFF or Google do. "The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian. The technology companies, which the NSA says includes Google..." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid e -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150919/9fb0d870/attachment.sig>