Comments on: USGavin, the lolcow http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/ Moving targets for a fast crowd. Thu, 14 May 2026 02:25:50 +0000 http://polimedia.us hourly 1 By: The Bitcoin address as a sign of intelligence « Dorion Mode http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/#comment-166050 The Bitcoin address as a sign of intelligence « Dorion Mode Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:16:08 +0000 http://trilema.com/?p=57294#comment-166050 [...] so called "Bitcoin Foundation". Once you've groked those, move on to the meta considerations, e.g. USGavin, the lolcow. Fast forward to April 2015, the scam bitcoin foundation runs out of coin to pay half to Gavin and [...] [...] so called "Bitcoin Foundation". Once you've groked those, move on to the meta considerations, e.g. USGavin, the lolcow. Fast forward to April 2015, the scam bitcoin foundation runs out of coin to pay half to Gavin and [...]

]]> By: Here's who doesn't belong in Bitcoin : you. on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/#comment-141768 Here's who doesn't belong in Bitcoin : you. on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. Wed, 08 Jan 2020 08:23:36 +0000 http://trilema.com/?p=57294#comment-141768 [...] Cryptography rests upon advanced math. Advanced math is more advanced than arithmetics (or statistics, for that [...] [...] Cryptography rests upon advanced math. Advanced math is more advanced than arithmetics (or statistics, for that [...]

]]> By: No Such lAbs (S.NSA), March 2015 Statement on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/#comment-141213 No Such lAbs (S.NSA), March 2015 Statement on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:02:35 +0000 http://trilema.com/?p=57294#comment-141213 [...] make no mistake about it, a healthy network of Bitcoin nodes outside of the control of the various enemies of Bitcoin is the first and foremost public interest in this space. Miners are financially motivated to run [...] [...] make no mistake about it, a healthy network of Bitcoin nodes outside of the control of the various enemies of Bitcoin is the first and foremost public interest in this space. Miners are financially motivated to run [...]

]]> By: Mircea Popescu http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/#comment-109562 Mircea Popescu Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:14:11 +0000 http://trilema.com/?p=57294#comment-109562 <blockquote>are you at all concerned with centralization, the atrophy of hash-power, or the necessary reduction in transaction volume in order to support the hashing and decentralized storage?</blockquote> Yes, which is exactly why I deny Gavin's idiocy. Because if left unchecked it leads directly to those. <blockquote>On the one hand I don’t particular care about “decentralization”, I’m more concerned about “freedom of entry”</blockquote> Freedom of entry is a complex matter. Maybe look into how it's handled on #bitcoin-assets, I'm pretty certain that's going to be the blueprint for Bitcoin and the future generally. <blockquote>I don’t really care that the network will be less hobbled by noncompetitive nodes</blockquote> The network is so designed that it can never, ever, under any circumstance be hobbled by nodes. If you think about it you might realise why. <blockquote>On the flip side, it’s important to avoid attacks on centralized nodes either via hashpower or the prolific ability for the State to fuck up such things.</blockquote> Enough with the word salad. "Centralised nodes" ARE the state. By definition. And they don't exist, and won't exist for as long as I remain more powerful than Gavin, or in proper terms, for as long as reality trumps ignorant blather.

are you at all concerned with centralization, the atrophy of hash-power, or the necessary reduction in transaction volume in order to support the hashing and decentralized storage?

Yes, which is exactly why I deny Gavin's idiocy. Because if left unchecked it leads directly to those.

On the one hand I don’t particular care about “decentralization”, I’m more concerned about “freedom of entry”

Freedom of entry is a complex matter. Maybe look into how it's handled on #bitcoin-assets, I'm pretty certain that's going to be the blueprint for Bitcoin and the future generally.

I don’t really care that the network will be less hobbled by noncompetitive nodes

The network is so designed that it can never, ever, under any circumstance be hobbled by nodes. If you think about it you might realise why.

On the flip side, it’s important to avoid attacks on centralized nodes either via hashpower or the prolific ability for the State to fuck up such things.

Enough with the word salad. "Centralised nodes" ARE the state. By definition. And they don't exist, and won't exist for as long as I remain more powerful than Gavin, or in proper terms, for as long as reality trumps ignorant blather.

]]> By: DumbFruit http://trilema.com/2014/usgavin-the-lolcow/#comment-109557 DumbFruit Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:07:29 +0000 http://trilema.com/?p=57294#comment-109557 Hello, sorry for the slow response, and I appreciate you taking the time. I agree that Bitcoin will survive regardless of how the block size is handled, but are you at all concerned with centralization, the atrophy of hash-power, or the necessary reduction in transaction volume in order to support the hashing and decentralized storage? I am on the fence on this issue. On the one hand I don't particular care about "decentralization", I'm more concerned about "freedom of entry". I don't really care that the network will be less hobbled by noncompetitive nodes. On the flip side, it's important to avoid attacks on centralized nodes either via hashpower or the prolific ability for the State to fuck up such things. In other words, you're absolutely correct that there is no commons issue as long as you are not concerned about centralization, but is that your position? Hello, sorry for the slow response, and I appreciate you taking the time. I agree that Bitcoin will survive regardless of how the block size is handled, but are you at all concerned with centralization, the atrophy of hash-power, or the necessary reduction in transaction volume in order to support the hashing and decentralized storage?
I am on the fence on this issue. On the one hand I don't particular care about "decentralization", I'm more concerned about "freedom of entry". I don't really care that the network will be less hobbled by noncompetitive nodes. On the flip side, it's important to avoid attacks on centralized nodes either via hashpower or the prolific ability for the State to fuck up such things.
In other words, you're absolutely correct that there is no commons issue as long as you are not concerned about centralization, but is that your position?

]]>