Message-ID: <556CF426.3030204@voskuil.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:09:10 -0700
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Legoupil?=
	<jjlegoupil@gmail.com>
References: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="CumUDxICj0m22fjT4T2lViMpPErEKFBBh"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--CumUDxICj0m22fjT4T2lViMpPErEKFBBh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 06/01/2015 08:55 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus
that's what gives Bitcoin its value.
> No. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.

Nonsense.

Visa, Dollar, Euro, Yuan, Peso have usage.

The value in Bitcoin is *despite* it's far lesser usage.

Yes, the price is a function of demand, but demand is a function of
utility. Despite orders of magnitude less usage than state currencies,
Bitcoin has utility. This premium *only* exists due to its lack of
centralized control. I would not work full time, or at all, on Bitcoin
if it was not for decentralization; nor would I hold any of it. I doubt
anyone would show an interest in Bitcoin if it was not decentralized. If
it centralized even you would be forced to find something else to do,
because Bitcoin "usage" would drop to zero.

> It's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation
is a means to an end.

No, it was/is the primary objective. Paypal had already been done. If
anything is maddening it's that you of all people can't see this. When
people talk about the core innovation of Bitcoin, it's a conversation
about Byzantine Generals, not wicked growth hacking.

> in April 2009 and it was perfectly decentralised [...] every wallet
was a full node and every computer was capable of mining. So if you
believe what you just wrote [...] Bitcoin's value has gone down every
day since

An obvious non sequitur. By way of example, if 10 of 10 participants are
capable of mining it is not more decentralized than if 1,000 in 100,000
are doing so. 1,000 *people* in control vs. 10 is two orders of
magnitude more decentralized. The *percentage* of the community that
mines is totally irrelevant, it's the absolute number of (independent)
people that matters.

I'm not making a statement on block size, just trying to help ensure
that ill-considered ideas, like this inversion of the core value
proposition, stay on the margins.

e


--CumUDxICj0m22fjT4T2lViMpPErEKFBBh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVbPQrAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOGscIAJ2gtJlU7zBfLZshntby0Fxs
QJbjaNXCNQLXfGa+udcFeKoNiQerOGKlsvX3hLYxXa7nYAoJNemMLbWLzl8CBSrw
h8+ONCN7oQ6qOZ41gWgTIwzblnKLJtayUcdnytLp5fzP8RsPA2ma8lZQi6oaCrj2
rBnWLBeDqDAenpqqS6TYErYWFz3u7b1+QNf3dfZxcEQPyo/W7FlEz3D9EsQKSxFC
I+tI6oU3JUODmq4f231wv/QHk/R66wIHxc+lp+qKfgpM+DgnDkGPSIv6dEjA6GYD
YmJTR/gous/szO8IUoDTMb2blsuyUF8ugCUym8k9uTgH+MZZS+p4Uy6xAfaVtFo=
=l/s9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--CumUDxICj0m22fjT4T2lViMpPErEKFBBh--