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

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>:

> +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>
> 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> 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...
>>
>>
>>
>