Re:Bitcoin Isn’t Tulips, It’s Open Source Money
by lawn on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:26PM
(#15767269)
I agree. These are good questions to ask, which everyone should at least consider.
Some quick comments on some of your points:
A + B) Bitcoin is currently congested because the Core development team refuses to raise the block size which forces up the fees. They instead want scaling to happen systems (like the Lightning Network) which are far from ready, if they work at all. They even state that Bitcoin doesn't work without full blocks because they are worried about hypothetical scenarios decades into the futures.
They want Bitcoin to only become a "store of value" instead of money. Completely disregarding that something that is only a store of value only becomes a ponzi like scheme where everything hinges on greater fools pumping in more money to the system.
This is of course insane and other cryptocurrencies tries to solve this. Bitcoin Cash is a direct result of this behavior which I believe is either incompetence, maliciousness or both.
C) Yes scaling isn't "solved" and likely cannot be completely solved. The only way forward is small steps at the time until an acceptable level is reached or the system fails. The limits of on-chain scaling for Bitcoin has never been tested (or even sufficiently researched) and then there's off-chain scaling which may help.
D) As with all things "decentralization" is an elusive term. It is in my opinion sufficiently decentralized because not one single actor can dictate the network.
We must never forget why decentralization is so important for a system like Bitcoin. It is to allow secure peer to peer permissionless transactions which cannot be censored. Bitcoin still fulfills this. Decentralization for decentralization's sake is inane.
Bitcoin's security also relies on a single miner (or a gang of miners) control >50% of the hashrate as they can then attack the network by starting to rewind transactions or block newer transactions.
E) Agreed.
For the uninitiated there are cryptocurrencies who tries to alter the coin emission schedule controlling how many coins are created over time. For example Monero has a tail emission which makes sure there will always be some amount of new coins, although it may not completely avoid the deflationary side.
F) Agreed.
You must be very careful if you want to truly stay anonymous on Bitcoin. A single misstep will leave a permanent trace on the blockchain allowing someone all the time in the world to analyze all breadcrumbs which may lead to you de-anonymization.
Bitcoin isn't fungible either as you can tell two coins apart. This can potentially completely undermine Bitcoin as a currency if some coins become tainted and significantly less valuable. Say for example after a hack. Fungibility is a fundamental property of money and cash is actually made fungible by law.
Some quick comments on some of your points:
A + B) Bitcoin is currently congested because the Core development team refuses to raise the block size which forces up the fees. They instead want scaling to happen systems (like the Lightning Network) which are far from ready, if they work at all. They even state that Bitcoin doesn't work without full blocks because they are worried about hypothetical scenarios decades into the futures.
They want Bitcoin to only become a "store of value" instead of money. Completely disregarding that something that is only a store of value only becomes a ponzi like scheme where everything hinges on greater fools pumping in more money to the system.
This is of course insane and other cryptocurrencies tries to solve this. Bitcoin Cash is a direct result of this behavior which I believe is either incompetence, maliciousness or both.
C) Yes scaling isn't "solved" and likely cannot be completely solved. The only way forward is small steps at the time until an acceptable level is reached or the system fails. The limits of on-chain scaling for Bitcoin has never been tested (or even sufficiently researched) and then there's off-chain scaling which may help.
D) As with all things "decentralization" is an elusive term. It is in my opinion sufficiently decentralized because not one single actor can dictate the network.
We must never forget why decentralization is so important for a system like Bitcoin. It is to allow secure peer to peer permissionless transactions which cannot be censored. Bitcoin still fulfills this. Decentralization for decentralization's sake is inane.
Bitcoin's security also relies on a single miner (or a gang of miners) control >50% of the hashrate as they can then attack the network by starting to rewind transactions or block newer transactions.
E) Agreed.
For the uninitiated there are cryptocurrencies who tries to alter the coin emission schedule controlling how many coins are created over time. For example Monero has a tail emission which makes sure there will always be some amount of new coins, although it may not completely avoid the deflationary side.
F) Agreed.
You must be very careful if you want to truly stay anonymous on Bitcoin. A single misstep will leave a permanent trace on the blockchain allowing someone all the time in the world to analyze all breadcrumbs which may lead to you de-anonymization.
Bitcoin isn't fungible either as you can tell two coins apart. This can potentially completely undermine Bitcoin as a currency if some coins become tainted and significantly less valuable. Say for example after a hack. Fungibility is a fundamental property of money and cash is actually made fungible by law.