Nostr Web Client

So monero is decentralized and this is a bad thing.

Not only that, but not understanding why centralization is a good thing, is poor design.

Right.....

Or do you mean, the fact hard forks are a centralized decision, is the weakness. (The fact the team can decide to hard fork)

Dan 2y ago

oh ffs... that is what you got out of that?

I am saying Monero is NOT sufficiently decentralized.

I am saying hard forks demonstrate centralization.

I am saying RandomX and the concept of ASIC *resistance* is in-and-of-itself, even without considering that it required a hard fork, a terrible idea that has the opposite effect you think it does.

ASIC *resistance* completely misses the boat on why PoW is so novel. A hard money has to be anchored to something unmovable and incorruptible. The entire point of PoW is that it anchors the time-chain to the laws of physics. It decentralizes control of block production and only rewards cheap energy.

ASIC *resistance* completely misses the boat and instead attempts to anchor the blockchain to something artificial and corruptible (hello antminer x5!). To maintain ASIC *resistance* another hard fork will be required. It's artificial.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Well, you've finally said more than two snarky words about your point, at least

Dan 2y ago

I don't owe you a multi paragraph explanation lol

I already said it's a shitcoin because it's not sufficiently decentralized. I already referenced the hardforks and ASIC resistance. These aren't knew arguments...

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

X5 is pretty recent, and research is underway to make it as profitable as any other CPU and remove its advantage. X5 happens to be using specific chipset technology that is only maginally better than a desktop cpus. Its an arms race between 1 cpu 1 vote, as satoshi envisioned and manufacturers trying to inch out an extra buck. It's not really an Asic by the way. Its an optimized series of desktop CPU's. A very dense desktop/server with regular archeture and instruction sets at the processor level. You could run regular software on them. Asics are very different, they only hash 256.

Compared to Bitcoin, the X5 outlier is an incredibly small portion of hash. Most hash is provided by regular people, as satoshi intended. Bitcoin has given up on small miners. Bitcoin has centralized around a few pools and companies and power grids. The whole point of Bitcoin is to be independant from governments, if the majority of security hash is provoded by government infrastructure and not anomymous every day users indistiguishable from anyonenelse using a computer, it can and will eventually be censored. It might take decades, but the difference between home gun ownership and keeping all your guns in a local depot, should be obvious.

You are scared of hardforks, but hardforks for the right reasons are a good thing. Even bitcoin will have to hardfork one day for Quantum resistance. Hardforks for bad reasons just mean one will win and become stronger. Several side monero's have already forked.

Forking is peace.

Dan 2y ago

It's an expensive purpose built miner that achieves a hash density that would be very expensive to compete with at home. It "not being an ASIC" is the worst kind of overly semantic argument. It's a distinction without any significance.

It's a perfect illustration of why trying to arbitrarily and artificially limit hash density is asinine. You can't stop specialization. You can only anchor to thermodynamics.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

Dan 2y ago

Annnnnnnd he misses the point... again

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

But apparently you can limit the upper bound on centralization

You're free to break RandomX anytime you want and prove us wrong though

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

its not though. They are selling old hardware at what would be a loss on a desktop machine. Again, it's specilized in physical layout but not in processor level structure, like an ASIC is. Its like ordering a custom motherboard or desktop case with ports, lights and fans in the places you want them.

This is not what an asic is. Asics are a specific non arbitrarily defined category of hardware. Not semantics. You are handwaving away a precise distinction through semantics, not me.

The X5 does not meet this criteria, it does not beat the desktop versions or defeat the intention of Randomx as it is competing fairly with every other desktop solo user with a thread ripper.

a fleet of X5's, for instance, would not create more of an advantage for a mining operation, the way only fleets of asics can now compete in the adjusted difficultybin bitcoin.

Whether twenty large X5 fleets are mining or none, the average user can contribute to the network and win kyc-free xmr's.This is the point of RX.

Let's suppose you were right, and X5's did give some economic advantage similar to asics. That means that up until now RX worked. Your position is tantamount to "life is meaningless, just give up". A defeatest Bitcoin maxi attitude is not surprising as your entire future value prop relies on the total collapse of modern civilization.

Its an arms race Bitcoin gave up on, but the Monero community is passionate about. Along with default privacy It's a very Cypherpunk ethos.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

FOSS and permissionlessness is all that matters. Anyone has the ability to exit by selling, swapping, or forking and no one can stop them. All funding that pushes Monero forward is by community support and all voluntary. There is no dev tax or premine.

Inability to hardfork, just like ability to upgrade, is a gift and a curse with it's own unique trade offs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to talk centralization include all inconvenient aspects of it. BTC is centralized via a handful of Bitcoin Core developers/maintainers and the company Blockstream. That's why Blockstream pet projects like Lightning and Liquid are quickly given the greenlight and any other ideas outside their cabal flounder. Even BCH is better decentralized by node software and CHIP upgrade proposals in practice.

Dan 2y ago

Found the clown

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

I don't know about that BCH stuff is, but everything else the said is true.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

Straight to insults. Sure sign of a secure position.

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Dan is troll. But like Shinobubu, if one draws them out they have something useful to say every a quarter moon or so.

Dan 2y ago

Yeah, I'm the troll 😂

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

All good. Not expecting to change someone mind who is dug in. I do this mostly for anyone reading thru these threads that is open to have another opinion to consider.

Will probably never get honest discussion from these guys. It does happen though and when it does it's great.

Dan 2y ago

This is amazing

Dan 2y ago

It's the sign of someone who's tired of arguing with buzzword/soundbite zombies.

You just called Bitcoin centralized and BCH decentralized with a straight face. You're not worth arguing with. Those are INSANE comments completely disconnected from reality.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. Reread what I said.

Dan 2y ago

"BTC is centralized via a handful of Bitcoin Core developers/maintainers and the company Blockstream." ... "Even BCH is better decentralized by node software and CHIP upgrade proposals in practice."

Hello?

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

I'm referring to specific aspects. I didn't paint broad brushstrokes like your are saying. The distribution of BCH *node software* is among 3 different main versions vs BTC 99.9% using Bticoin Core.

What is more decentralized 1 or 3?

As for NIPS they only pass if Core greenlights them. While CHIPS in practice is more open and anyone can introduce one and anyone can vote. What is more centralized one gatekeeper or all major stakeholders?

https://github.com/cashtokens/cashtokens/blob/master/stakeholders.md

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

I did not know that about BCH. Interesting. The blocksize wars was the most damaging thing to bitcoin ever.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

Yes, it's one of several things I think BCH does better than BTC and XMR.

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

I think both BTC and XMR would benefit to adopt the way BCH does it's proposals

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Bitcoin development is centralized. Decisions and the political marketing for them, are made by core devs whom other non technical people trust. Many of these devs have historic ties to Blockstream or other large institutional investors. This are the institutions with the funding to back research into and maintain bitcoin.

The only proof you need is seeing who stands to lose the most from bip300, Liquid, and how those connected to blockstream argue against it. But there is other proof too.

So i ask you, how are decisions to improve bitcoin made ? and how is this different than the college of bishops in Rome ?

Drivechain allows the free market to decide what bitcoin does, each user gets to decide, on a seperate layer fromncore bitcoin that remains mostly the same going forwards in time.