Responding to Jack Mallers On BTC Mining Centralization

Bitcoiners apparently forgot how to be adversarial. When people bring up fees & game theory to hand waive the centralization problems, I’m shocked. What’s the game theory of nation states losing access to hundreds of trillions of the money printer? Would they perhaps oppose it?

Jack Mallers arguments are based on a beautiful vanilla strawberry cake. Everything is perfect, nothing can go wrong.

I like Jack Mallers, but he's a finance guy, not a systems engineer.

Another GREAT video...Thanks Matthew! Far too many folks new to Bitcoin forgot that they shouldn't be trusting ANYONE in the space. If a 'capture' scenario is possible, you can bet that nation-states and/or 'trad-fi' are going to exploit them to their benefit.

Hey @jackmallers please respond.

Regarding the CBDC issue, I believe this is why Core 30 blew open OP_RETURN. Eventually it will be used on every transaction to place notes to help track who owns what UTXO.

Best video in awhile, thanks Matt. I think the game theory is very difficult to understand while Bitcoin is so nascent. If most of the world depended on Bitcoin for daily survival (I.e. Bitcoin standard), things would be much more benign, stable and comprehensible when it comes to these topics.

I like @Strike. I've used it. It was, and still is, an easy way to use bitcoin lightning easily, and to buy/sell bitcoin (BTC). However, I won't be using Strike anymore until they give everyone access to the BLAKE2b chain coins that they're holding for everyone since the fork.

@jackmallers smh 🤦

@jackmallers the window to be on the right side is closing, what say you?

Responding to Jack Mallers On BTC Mining Centralization ...

There is no miner centralization because there are too many miners out there and they can switch pools immediately whenever they want. So stop talking bullshit

I address that objection here:

Randy coin

@DonalDevine who?

@jackmallers you will lose me as a Strike customer as long as you do not make the forked coins accessible. I don't care if it's only a 24-window to access those coins. If you want to remain in good standing with the bitcoin community, you will make it happen.

Coffee and kratter time

@jackmallers

The risk of fiat money has always been political. Fed debases politically. Inflation is political. The bueaty of Bitcoin is to resist these political actions through technicalities. If "Technicals" get corrupted or malfunctioned, the invention is fully doomed.

@nderchris Chooses to ignore this information.

I'm not ready to raise the red flag on Mallers just yet but it's getting close. He comes off as being naive and drunk off the spirits of Bitcoin here more than a malicious actor. I think he is not beyond saving or redeeming himself just yet. If he allows Strike to hold and trade in XBT alongside BTC at the very least that would be a strong and bold move on his part if lets the best fork win. That said, NeoxEx has been looking younger and hotter lately...

If they can't pull the power cord out of the wall, it's not centralization. Individual miners retain full control over their transaction selection, pool choice and whether or not the machine is even powered on. Also, a pool attempting 51% attack is economic self-annihilation.

You didn’t even watch the video, did you?

Yes. A lot of incredibly extreme outlier scenarios presented that, to be perfectly honest, if I made a list of 1000 concerns, would lie somewhere between 980 - 1000.

What would be the top 3 concerns if you made that list?

1. Fraud & Social Engineering. This is rampant scares people away. 2. Division and infighting. Beginners looking for straightforward guidance see noise and a toxic culture. 3. Tech barrier to entry. Storing 12 or 24 random words to backup to your life savings turns people off.

None of these are actual concerns, unlike centralized mining. Bitcoin toxic maximalism is Bitcoin's immune system, and you cannot protect the network if you're willing to tolerate scammers. As for backups, being your own bank is really hard, and it's not a tech problem. What you're actually describing is how fiat money has made modern people extremely weak

Sure. But that means they're also weak because they also don't kill what they eat, sleep outside, or survive without dependence on governments. One way or another people find the way of least friction. I'm saying a network needs network effect. Without users there is no network.

Thanks for making a lot of sense again on the main chain ;)

@grok is this important or bad to us the individuals? Does that mean they can capture Bitcoin?