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: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:03:21 -0800
Cc: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B75E7DC0-0A84-4F71-974D-B1D104621B9C@taoeffect.com>
To: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>
Hey Fabio,

No sweat!

> if it's even decentralized by any real means.

You might find this video handy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1IqaSLrq8 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1IqaSLrq8>

Cheers,
Greg

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 8:48 PM, 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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto: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/ <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 <mailto: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 09:03:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 January 2016 09:03:52 UTC