sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
May 29, 2017, 05:57:05 PM

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.
I do not think you understand the meaning of decentralized. Bitcoin is only centralized logically which is desired. Politically and architecturally it is decentralized. You should be clear that you are arguing for the fact that you "think" it is not politically decentralized. You cannot argue it is not architecturally decentralized because that would simply not be true.

With that you should revisit your article and perhaps I will read it when it is well understood that the author understands the meaning of decentralization on which his whole argument is formed. Heh, you mention ambiguous definitions are tiresome yet you then go off and give assumptions and hypothesis' based on ambiguous definitions yourself.

You can't be serious.  You're basically making the argument that anything where someone has not double spent *YET* or *CONSTANTLY* is automatically decentralized.  That's not how this works.  You are not automatically proven to be decentralized with a functional Nash equilibrium until mass armageddon begins.  It is ironic that the ASIC factory sunk cost is the only reason there is not constant double spend, but those same ASICs also make the system inherently worthless and the equivalent of a closed entropy system at the same time.
The barrier of entry is low into asics as you can buy contracts and  im not sure how you arrived to your conclusion on the correct charcterizatiom based on double spends. You should work on your ambigious definitions first to figure out what argument you are trying to make clearly and then draw upon your hypothesis because of reason a b and c. I do not see that from your attempt.