Nostr Web Client

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.

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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.