From: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Milly Bitcoin" <milly@bitcoins.info>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:21:55 +0000
Message-Id: <eme6e53f4a-40c6-4b6f-8cf1-b2e8d9905e9d@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <55FF2CF8.2010408@bitcoins.info>
Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23181.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
Precedence: list


------ Original Message ------
From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"=20
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 9/20/2015 3:02:32 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

>>Larger user base won't necessarily protect against governments if we
>>still have chokepoints they can go after.
>
>
>Bitcoin will always have chokepoints governments can go after.  Hackers=
=20
>already targeted routers to divert mining traffic awhile back.  Bitcoin=
=20
>traffic is easily seen and blocked by ISP's.  It has already been=20
>pointed out that laws against merchants and exchanges cannot be=20
>defended against any other way than to have many people use the system.
Almost none of these merchants depend on Bitcoin in any significant way=20
for revenue...and that's likely to remain the case for a good while.=20
Merchants that have chosen to accept Bitcoin are typically using a=20
handful of payment processors, again...chokepoints. And almost none of=20
them are contributing any network resources back to Bitcoin.

Exchanges are indeed serious chokepoints. But increasing the number of=20
users will probably have relatively little effect on this unless we also=
=20
increase the number of exchanges and decentralize the exchanges. If all=20
we had to do is increase the number of users, the same argument could be=
=20
used to claim that banks would be less susceptible to governmental=20
crackdowns if they just had more account holders.

Exchange decentralization is indeed another thing we must work towards -=
=20
but that's probably beyond the scope of the more pressing issue which is=
=20
building consensus in Bitcoin development.

>(As a developer you, of course, did not mention the threat of having a=20
>tiny number of developers who have significant influence over Bitcoin. =
=20
>It always amazes me the endless discussion over miners centralization=20
>and almost zero discussion of developer decentralization.)
I've pointed out this weakness of Bitcoin *numerous* times. That I=20
failed to mention it here does not mean it hasn't been discussed=20
elsewhere. Some of us have also been actively working towards developing=
=20
a more modular, layered architecture and better implementations that=20
will afford greater decentralization in software development with less=20
need for critical code reviews, less pushback from downstream developers=
=20
who must continuously rebase, a better process for building consensus in=
=20
the community, and simpler app migration.

>
>
>Increasing the nodes by a factor of 2 or 3 or keeping the block size=20
>small to increase the diversity of miners by a few percent will have=20
>zero effect if those other government threats were to actually happen.
>
We need to increase the basic infrastructure nodes by a factor much=20
larger than 2 or 3...more like 100 or 1000...and it's entirely doable=20
with properly aligned incentives.

>Russ
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev