#[1]
Hi Gigi,
in your article you mention following:
“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.
Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?
Also, could you go deeply into following statement:
“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”
This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.
And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).
#[1]
Hi Gigi,
in your article you mention following:
“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.
Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?
Also, could you go deeply into following statement:
“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”
This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.
And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).
#[1]
Hi Gigi,
in your article you mention following:
“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.
Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?
Also, could you go deeply into following statement:
“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”
This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.
And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).
#[1]
Hi Gigi,
in your article you mention following:
“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.
Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?
Also, could you go deeply into following statement:
“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”
This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.
And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).
SSD in bitcoin as common-pool-resource (german: Allmendegut)?
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartl/status/1630837516453511169?s=20
#[0]
Undergoes the bitcoin Timechain-Storage the “tragedy of the commons”?
In reality, that’s your bitcoin definition 😉
Technical explanation about Inscriptions (and some Ordinals):
https://anchor.fm/bitcoin-explained/episodes/Bitcoin--Explained-72-Inscriptions-e1unaeb
Almost 5 years ago #[0]
exposed the SegWit and block size dispute:
https://anchor.fm/bitcoinaudible/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_054---The-Long-Road-To-Segwit-e2ndsv
Bitcoin newcomers and bitcoiners oldcomers could remember and take lessons learned from history.
#[1]
How to deal with the never ending miners try to increment mining fees when the bitcoin exchange rate is in “bear market”? And how to deal with this same situation in the future when the block subsidy decreases as expected?
Just like illusionary bitrows designated with the bitcoin’s orthogonal inscription numbers 169689, 169631, 169739, 169888