From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89BFB35 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:33:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.17]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630D01ED for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (c-73-201-114-57.hsd1.md.comcast.net [73.201.114.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57DC67822A8 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:33:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org; s=20110108; t=1442784823; bh=eR6v2WSGfluZDbyDNzjvO3nBujxxbu37hsMe16HrElg=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VHblAcGge3/ZUdkCAqa3d2DmYpXZM51IOHW/malh0gz62AIcRZwbsGbMWuUT8tIbG 7usjQyvcfynB29vovUiqd6/3PYoMM3aROVUCne0H2cKI10vYDSVut95vGqFCnfC9ob W59XcfT4l/3s2+dHrYj1TGZtmds37n/0zztmQylE= Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org References: <55F9E47D.50507@mattcorallo.com> <55FC6EBF.9090504@mattcorallo.com> <20150919014710.GD22598@muck> <20150919060639.A775A404B9@smtp.hushmail.com> <55FD0737.1080008@voskuil.org> <20150919072714.D3349404B9@smtp.hushmail.com> <55FD1122.5030107@voskuil.org> <20150919075758.820CC404B9@smtp.hushmail.com> <55FD225B.1050402@voskuil.org> <55FDD951.9010709@gmail.com> <20150920162140.8B00D404BA@smtp.hushmail.com> <55FEE015.6000506@bitcoins.info> <55FF1D06.7000301@bitcoins.info> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: s7r X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55FF2632.2010804@sky-ip.org> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:33:38 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55FF1D06.7000301@bitcoins.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ALXFTbJy c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=Ie2nkzWBLYG/IwYcn47MuA==:117 a=Ie2nkzWBLYG/IwYcn47MuA==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=JYlUYU_PmZ96GQrY_2wA:9 a=kIHj-DifwVPITmm8:21 a=BeSqjA9o0pa5EbdH:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:33:49 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Nobody said anything about trusting the governments in the way such as you describe. No matter how much you want to disagree here, Mike Hearn is right on some aspects. He only said that bitcoin needs to have larger user base, more use cases, making it more popular and less likely to be banned by the governments because of political reasons. He did not say "let's trust the governments and centralize bitcoin, give them the possibility to trace/seize/control people's bitcoins, own all the full nodes or hashing power" or anything like this. So, I think he wants to suggest "be smart and Play by the rules, follow your interest". The general threat model for which we want to scale is: larger user base (not necessarily by increasing the blocksize - just increase the transactions per second using the best way from all points of view), more use cases for simple people who only do basic stuff, more popularity but all these without the possibility for some actor to control more than he should (like a government agency). For example, just a summary (among many others): it will always be impossible to freeze anyone's coins, or take them without the party's consent, or make it mandatory to tie bitcoin addresses / wallets to real world identities. If we think governments are the threat, it's bad. This is because they can make bitcoin illegal, and no matter what you or I think, there will _always_ be more people who follow the laws (even the immoral ones) than people who don't. If it's illegal / banned in relevant places/countries/continents, bitcoin will be useless. What good will it be if you can only use it anonymously in a dark-web via Tor, and you can't tell anyone you do it and can't exchange it to fiat or vice versa? Bitcoin has to be legit, have normal use cases and be as popular as possible. Don't think that if tomorrow some government bans bitcoin there will be a revolution supporting freedom and free speech and who had this terrible idea will be jailed forever - this will not happen. What will happen is that users under that jurisdiction will not use bitcoin any more, merchants from there will not accept bitcoin any more and exchangers from there will disappear. If some of them will remain to continue doing it as an outlaw, I assume their number will be insignificant anyway. If we move towards crypto-anarchy where we want to say "f*** the laws, f*** the government, f*** everything", we already lost and this should not be the consensus here under any circumstances. We, a few computer experts on this mail list using bitcoin is not what it will make it strong. What will make it strong is millions of human beings from all social classes and with various occupations using it for whatever boring reason each one might have. +1: An outlaw currency is useless even to outlaws. > On 9/20/2015 4:23 PM, Steven Pine wrote: >> It's amazing how foolish some people are to continue trusting >> governments especially in light of recent history: a seemingly >> endless, Orwellian 'war on terror', multiple regional conflicts >> often justified by fake evidence, wholesale disregard of law and >> basic human covenants such as do not torture, ubiquitous and >> secret global surveillance. >> >> Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model >> is either a shill or an idiot. >> >> On Sep 20, 2015 12:34 PM, "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" >> > > wrote: >> >> Until this is settled, Bitcoin has no clear direction and >> developers cannot make effective decisions: >> >> >> How exactly do things set "settled" in this environment? >> >> People looking at Bitcoin think a small group of developers and >> miners "control" these decisions. Not sure if "control" is the >> right word but that is the perception. >> >> Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV/yYyAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRbagH/1mv0u+xUy2FhYhk07irH9Qd +U/v7xOLfrzz8j7BzcqLAt3Jey0r00oWbLpay4EyhtoOjPFSFwXZ5Cz/2FChbTFO kNFtrQpR9ioRAHslePzhIWl0Zl3qz6a7HzrYGl7hLZVJGmXdAncpGEZLpgjONggb R+dbKipICkRCjuOWZkpULLVUEfTTdy7bkBTR33wVb7QxRhdJNdLtXc9E0xEWPwfy AalDSu/nhg+VLjIW9NUGky8oqk1pqnHS8AkkAt0jLaemdWgLTzt6Ll4+w4GYaLrj Ac2te3HXPwUzyq9xnoae5ESOU7MWzkzvyKQs35c4z03aLz2UxHjEL6o6K50leAw= =43rd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----