Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:10:54 -0500
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20140325221054.GA3180@nl.grid.coop>
References: <20140322084702.GA13436@savin>
	<CAC1+kJNh=7yhmAdFHFv9VBJOOMhen6nwr=U9peG2J_7EovPqxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140322193435.GC6047@savin>
	<CAC1+kJNOuCpUPDiaBNR40T12W3MwUXpXp+PCTLhHyQwyc+8BqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140323231737.GM3180@nl.grid.coop> <532F740C.9010800@monetize.io>
	<20140324203403.GR3180@nl.grid.coop> <53309C2A.4040406@monetize.io>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53309C2A.4040406@monetize.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for
 embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:57:14PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 01:34 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > I'm here because I want to sell corn for bitcoin, and I believe it will be
> > more profitable for me to do that with a bitcoin-blockchain-based system
> > in which I have the capability to audit the code that executes the trade.
> 
> A discussion over such a system would be on-topic. Indeed I have made my
> own proposals for systems with that capability in the past:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/31322676/
> 
> There's no reason to invoke alts however. There are ways where this can
> be done within the bitcoin ecosystem, using bitcoins:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32108143/
> 
> > I think that's fair, so long as we limit bitcoin-development discussion to
> > issues that are relevant to the owners of the hashrate and companies that
> > pay developer salaries.
> > 
> > What I'm asking for is some honesty that Bitcoin is a centralized system
> > and to stop arguing technical points on the altar of distributed/decentralized
> > whatever. It's pretty clear if you want decentralized you should go with 
> > altchains.
> 
> Bitcoin is not a centralized system, and neither is its development. I
> don't even know how to respond to that. Bringing up altchains is a total
> red herring.
> 
> This is *bitcoin*-development. Please don't make it have to become a
> moderated mailing list.

When I can pick up a miner at Best Buy and pay it off in 9 months I'll 
agree with you that bitcoin *might* be decentralized. Maybe there's a 
chance this *will* happen eventually, but right now we have a couple of
mining cartels that control most of the hashrate.

There are plenty of interesting alt-hash-chains for which mass produced,
general purpose (or gpgpu-purpose) hardware exists and is in high volume
mass production.