duckingtest

>There is no reason I see why a capitalist system cannot include intervention by the government

You're attempting to redefine the meaning of words to create a strawman where 'capitalism' can have any property you want, which then allows you to misrepresent an attack on a $random_negative_thing as an attack on 'capitalism'.

A system with state intervening in the market is called a mixed economy.

>It has also resulted in much higher rates of exploitation, as the workers of countries with more lax or unenforced labour laws suffer greatly for it.

The more protected against 'exploitation' people in a particular country are, the more likely they are to risk their lives trying to escape their socialist utopias.

If you weren't a hypocrite you would renounce your citizenship and relocate to a 'better' place, like Cuba or Venezuela.

American medical system is not capitalist but mercantilist. It's illegal to offer services without explicit permission of the medical guild. It has the exact same effect all historical guild systems had: price gouging and reduced supply. Taxi licenses are another good example.

Capitalist medical system would mean the value of a particular medical certification would be set by the market, ie. everyone would be able to sell medical services. Historically free market has always resulted in a much better quality in addition to lower prices.

It's only possible for everyone to win if basic resources are infinite. Tribalism is the only pareto optimal strategy for finite resources, especially land on Earth.

Allowing for coordinated protocol changes, the optimal length of pre-cooperative identification code should depend on the probability of error (defector). Which after a long enough time of winning (ie. close to zero defectors) would lead to jumping into cooperation immediately. Which would make defense against defectors impossible and lead to a total collapse as they exploit the hapless cooperators.

Interesting parallels.

What these simulations show is that tribalism is a winning strategy. Which means not following it leads to death.

>We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.

Considering an inherent property of a winning strategy evil means your code is non-optimal and is inevitably going to disappear.

POW can't work at these scales. At $250k/btc mining would burn something close to the equivalent of New Zealand's GDP. As this would be purely electrical energy, energy use alone would be equivalent to that of Spain or similarly sized country.

That's only partly true. There are countries where average wage is $300/month. They are NOT going to buy legal software and media for $40/thing no matter how easy it is.

>You can only say this if you're too ignorant to be worth a damn on the subject, or are insane enough to think that the people who have developed the protocol for the last 8 years are all misguided

Argument from authority

>where the decentralization of miners is threatened even by a 2 MB block size

proof by assertion

>is too capable of assumptions to be let near engineering.

ie 'u dumb'

I'm sure you convinced many people with your thoughtful comment. :)

That's complete FUD on several levels. On a most general level, mining itself only needs the header. Chinese miners can verify blocks and transactions elsewhere and only send headers to the actual mining sites. A dial-up should be enough.

Regardless, from what I heard it's not a problem anymore. Even if it was, allowing 'fast passage' for bitcoin blocks seems like a obvious course of action for the Chinese government, it's just another export industry at this point.

Calling it 'weak' is giving it too much consideration. The only sensible argument against larger blocks is that they boost mining centralization because larger blocks may take more time to propagate. Which may be true but it requires 1GB+ blocks. 10Gbps connection isn't a noticeable cost item for a serious mining operation, which means latency for a 1MB block and a 1GB one should be almost identical.

That's it. Remember that decentralization in bitcoin concerns miners, and miners only. 'Nodes' in the whitepaper are synonymous with miners.

Non-mining wallets need to have enough bandwidth to download blocks from miners as they appear. For 1GB blocks 20Mbps is enough. Which means a full verifying wallet for 1GB blocks is practical on a LTE connection.

Storage is also a non-problem with utxo commitments.

It turned out to be a misconception because computers are astronomically easier to use now. If you had to ever configure a config.sys entry for a specific game you know what I mean.

You should ask the question about Core developers' incentives: what do they personally gain from scaling bitcoin? Nothing, at best increase in value of their holdings which they share with lots of free-riders, and only until they sell. They only gain continuously if scaling is prevented as that opens space for their second-layer solutions - presumably to be enabled by planned 'improvements' to bitcoin. Ie. their only incentive is to capture bitcoin for rent extraction.

Miners are the only entities that have a continued incentive to improve bitcoin directly.

THAT'S the real conflict, everything else is BS.

There's an old idea that solves the storage issue completely - utxo commitments.

Literally the only real throughput limit is end user's download bandwidth, which means 500MB blocks or so for 10Mbps download. Spv clients are fine for those unfortunate to have monthly limits.

>making it even more profitable to mine for big investors, than smaller fish.

Both storage and bandwidth are utterly insignificant cost items in a mining operation.

There's no free market in healthcare. Healthcare in the US is a guild with state-enforced monopoly. Reasonable prices would defeat the whole point of this.

Naturally, it's sold to the public as 'safety' or other BS.