W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Blockchain, block size and interledger (was: How do bank payments actually work?)

From: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:25:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CABG_PfQgekR-7DbTn0rM7XX-N5AMmToJottGu5=VxCORPorGww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>
Cc: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
I own bitcoins, and the amount of vitriol that has resulted from a debate
about a simple technical change is not encouraging.

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016, Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I apologize.
> I fell victim of an unchecked, unresearched and unquestioned article.
>
> @Greg, thank you for taking the time to write down your response to Mike.
> I first was a bit put off by your one-line response, but your effort going
> into your article more than fully compensates it.
>
> I never should have been starting this conversation anyway.
>
> I never owned bitcoins (I do accept bitcoins on my blog but nobody ever
> cared, but that's a different issue and may be related to my writing).
> I don't like much bitcoin as a financial instrument, because it has the
> same capitalist-greedy fundations as the conventional money system - just
> without intermediares.
> I don't like the fact that mining myself is close to utterly useless,
> because server farms of some wealthy greedy chap will outperform me by far
> (so the decentralization argument is somewhat put in context...),, and thus
> because the centralization of the network in just a few hands can indeed
> become (or IS?) a real threat
> (and all this explains why I fell victim that quickly - I suppose this
> applies somewhat to many folks eagerly passing around Mike's version).
>
> Maybe I'll never grow up from my utopian dreams of a "better" world
> (whatever that is). Welcome to reality.
>
> My post was fueled by genuine interest in the blockchain itself and its
> potential, by my admiration for the technology, not bitcoin.
>
> At the same time I am saddened,
> because I don't have the time to read all the links and the sub-links and
> the sub-links in the sub-links (reinforcing the statement that I should
> maybe not talk about it then, which saddens me even more),
> because after 20 years in software development I am not able to understand
> this technology as much as I would like to,
> because I now can't even discern if I should more be concerned about the
> developers, or the big miners, if it's even decentralized by any real means.
>
> I honor all the work being done and the undoubtedly many well-intentioned
> and hard-working folks involved.
>
>
> And apologize for wasting people's time up to this point. Never mind.
>
>
>
>
> 2016-01-26 22:14 GMT-05:00 Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pindar.wong@gmail.com');>>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> There's no collapse but the technical dimensions of scaling bitcoin are
>> more involved that just changing of a constant.
>>
>> See
>>
>> scalingbitcoin.org
>>
>> for some of the technical presentations if you're interested.
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','contact@taoeffect.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent collapse of
>>> bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the block-size issue?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this BS and you should stop spreading it.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://fixingtao.com/2016/01/point-by-point-response-to-mike-hearns-final-bitcoin-post/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','holon.earth@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As suggested, I am starting a new thread for this topic.
>>> I apologize if I am coming over as verbose and/or cluttering your
>>> inboxes.
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent collapse of
>>> bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the block-size issue?
>>>
>>> The question is related to the blockchain itself, not bitcoin.
>>> Block size is ultimately a "political" decision of the community, and
>>> there appears to be a scism because of that.
>>> Not wanting to discuss that in itself (it's probably being discussed
>>> elsewhere),
>>>
>>> but what do you guys think this means for blockchain technology itself?
>>>
>>> Will we see a proliferation of different blockchains, making ILP even
>>> more interesting and important?
>>>
>>> Could this be a blow to blockchain technology itself (unlikely IMHO),
>>> because limitations of this technology are becoming apparent?
>>>
>>> What developments do you foresee happening in this field, also maybe not
>>> underestimating a potential collapse of the global economy this year?
>>>
>>> On a side note, I like Ethereum's basic tenets but I am worried about a
>>> lock-in of some sorts...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 06:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 January 2016 06:27:51 UTC