The goal is not decentralisation. Decentralisation is the means to robustness. The goal is not a trustless system, that's the means to transactions that are almost free.
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
Why DO we need a mechanism to make payments without a trusted party if payments over a trusted party WORK just fine?
BECAUSE trusted parties LIMIT the minimum practical transaction size, CUT OFF the possibility for small casual transactions and because of this trust ... a trusted payment system is MORE COSTLY.
Ask yourself this. If the goal is TRUSTLESSNESS itself instead of TRUSTLESSNESS being the means to a better payment system that would mean that TRUST itself is BAD.
Do you want to live in a world where trust is considered bad? Because that means you would have to spy on everybody all the time, to make sure you don't have to TRUST them. That you spy on your own kids because trusting them would be bad. That you spy on your friends, because trusting them would be bad. You would have to check a baby in the womb for every possible disease and malformity because TRUST is BAD. You would need to hear a second and a third and a fourth opinion on everything because TRUST is BAD.
If would turn every human being in to a potential enemy because TRUST is BAD. Can you even TRUST yourself?
Does that sound like what the people of this world want or what the governments of this world want? Now do you recognise the spirit that is behind Core?
Within crypto so many people have gotten confused about the goals and the means. The way to get somewhere has become the destination itself. And when the road you travel on also becomes your destination, you will never go anywhere.
If the goal is decentralisation then let's just kill the bitcoin network. Write all our private keys on pieces of paper and distribute 7,6 billion pieces of papers with private keys written on them. One for every human being.
Then we have achieved maximum decentralisation. But why? And for what?
Core is confused and they have confused a lot of crypto. They don't know what problems they are trying to solve. No wonder people like luke-jr and Greg Maxwell advice people not to pay with crypto but to use credit cards. They have no clue about exactly what problems in society we are trying to solve.
Decentralise all the things is an abstract statement that makes no sense without context and makes no sense without a clear goal. Why do we decentralise? For the sake of decentralisation itself?
Coreons don't like other people. They want to remove everybody from everybody. How does that line up with what the internet is about? To bring human beings closer together and help them connect and share. To create some sort of a hivemind, a shared memory that is accessible to every human being.
If you don't understand these core human concepts, then I am sorry but Bitcoin is not for you. What you are interested in is something else, but you should not call it Bitcoin because that's the name Satoshi called what he was interested in.
Bitcoin is a solution to:
- the minimum practical transaction size in online payment systems is limite
- no casual small transactions in online payment systems
- a loss for merchants because they can't make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services
If then your solution becomes
- more expensive then the online payment system we already have
- less predictable then the online payment systems we already have
- less capacity then the online payment systems we already have.
Please come up with your own name for that instead of stealing the name from Satoshi, who was creative enough to come up with it.
"Bitcoin Core" is now anti-social and anti-bitcoin. If you turn the face of Greg Maxwell upside down you still kind of have the face of Greg Maxwell.
But if you turn Bitcoin up side down it becomes a problem instead of solving one.
1 of 1 reviewers say it's worth paying for
0 of 1 reviewers say it's not worth paying for