Thank you for reading the first one (big assumption).
Watch the video:
This post is about Roger's comment at 3:30 in.
His main purpose and interest in joining the discussion is this:
We agree on a free market, so which big block variation of Bitcoin is the most likely to bring "peer-to-peer permission-less cash for the world"?
A person could easily write an entire book just on this. Well, actually many have done so.
Let's look at what each of these bits of information mean on their own... in a very surface-level capacity.
First of all: Free market. Not too much further in the video, you will hear a comment about how President Reagan talked a lot about a free market, and yet he was not exactly a free market President. I would agree on some points, disagree on others. Every Presidency is defined by many factors, and the President may be a figurehead to much of this, but is also a sum of the parts of the branches and those they are surrounded by, whether by choice or by system. Reagan had globalist ideas, free market ideas, and "know when to step in" ideas, all of which had appropriate economic logic behind them, and some that were most likely determined by political pressures of the time.
A good example was the argument, even back then, as to whether the government should step in, intervene, and rescue one of the major U.S. car manufacturers. The belief was that if they were not making good business decisions, the free market should decide, and ultimately people should decide whether to sink their money into a product that is failing for legitimate reasons, even if it meant hundreds or thousands could lose jobs. The other option is a more Statist option, to rescue every important business especially because they ARE providing jobs, but allow for tiny steps towards Statism and if given the opportunity, tyrannical control. We see countless examples of countries throughout history that create much worse economic conditions by trying to step in and rescue a bad short term outcome. In this case, Reagan was very much of the free market mindset. In other areas, like the management of agriculture, there is no question that in historical perspective, he folded to pressure to clamp down on over-reaching control, and there are many a bitter landowner to this day that still resent his double-mindedness on these types of conditions. He, and his legacy spokesman have backed up the claims that he regretted giving in to pressures on that home-front. We could cover Iran-Contra, China trade agreements and so many examples, but that would move from the purpose.
The truth of the free market, is that it has many tentacles, limitations, and ultimately cannot exist without an attachment to shared political ideals. You have to manage an open, free market with rules, so that anyone playing by the structured agreements can play as they wish. Imagine kids in a sandbox. They can do as they wish, as long as they stay in the box, don't throw sand in each other's eyes, and whatever else the chaperone decides. If you haven't noticed, we barely have any 2 governments out of the majority-179 that truly agree on any major issues that ultimately resolve a free and open market. Freedom requires some rules to be in place, though true anarchist Libertarians, more resembling the Libertine movement than actual freedom, believe any rules in place are too limiting. Once again, the truth is that you cannot create a freedom-loving CRYPTOCURRENCY without rules. Can't be done. In fact, ironically Bill Gates, who is truly not a fan of freedom, designed the origin of the code that every coin project will ultimately use to custom-code their freedom. Irony abounds in every corner of crypto, and it is partly why I love it so much.
One could describe my view as one of controlled chaos, or fairness amidst freedom, and a myriad of frameworks, but in the end I wish for the same things that true crypto idealists long for, and that is simply the choice, to make a choice. For an individual to be allowed to choose which money works for them, and choose to trade in or out of that with ease, and the option whether to have support and represent identities or not, should all be a part of the landscape. I don't think the actual solution does actually exist, but the more we lean towards dropping the shackles, the more likely we can pick and choose the features that are the most meaningful to us. For that, I think I agree with everyone in the video.
Secondly: Big block
For the car enthusiasts, you just got excited for a second there, but this is about MB or computer storage blocks of data, and not about a large format engine. Ironically, there are similarities that make for a proper analogy. A big block engine may be able to put out more power, with more force, mass, gas intake (not Ether) and other variations, but it is simultaneously limited by it's weight, which ultimately matters if there is gravity. The entire design of the car would center around supporting the size and weight, aerodynamics that coincide, better struts, different axles, and everything in the chain ultimately must be made for that capacity. With cryptocurrencies, the way that blocks of data are handled can have a direct correlation to capacity and speed, meaning that choosing an appropriate block size can ultimately determine the efficiency of the blockchain. Since every single thing about cryptocurrency is taking the theoretical into real practice, every idea is a risk, and there may be multiple results.
The block size that provides a foundation for a coin can include smaller set values, large set values, and even the option to have unlimited values. This gets into the technical and also the economic model, because every option has a relation to how transactions interact with the network and the actual fees for network use, not to mention the actual computational difficulty level that limits, and is limited by every processor decision. It is complex, beautiful at the code level, and there is not a single correct answer, at least not right now. The truth is, that the block size is just as important a defining factor in a coin's success as other ideals and format choices. Many new, small coin projects honestly may seem to have much faster, cheaper, better resolve to the issues of how to transact fast, cheap, and without central authority, but there is also evidence that some of them test better in beta because they are not truly taxed by the real world limitations that are found at the top, with the likes of Bitcoin BCH, BSV, Ether etc., all of which have pushed up against total congestion and capacity a few times in their history.
Where I would like to go with the topic of block size, as opposed to the technical, where many others are massively more well studied, is to use it as a support for the idea that there should be room for every legitimate coin project to have its voice and its followers, and the FREE MARKET should ultimately decide the fate of crappy coins. I think on some level everyone in the video would agree, but perhaps to varying degrees they might not see the blind spot to their positions.
Third: Peer to peer
This aspect of blockchain in its entirety would probably not be what it is today if it were not for Napster. That is an extremely interesting topic, and for me I COULD write a book on it, because I actually come from the music industry. I remember the days that Metallica spokesperson, Drummer, became the voice for the industry and they instantly lost a cool factor that had sustained them for the decade before. Sadly, what Lars Ulrich had to say was 100% correct, but it was also 100% already far too late to try to make the point he lent his voice to. If he had any idea how little people would hear from his actual argument, Lars was probably smart enough to take a different approach, and we all would have been spared some of the bumps in the road between Napster, internet intellectual property law, and ultimately iTunes.
This will come back around to a later post as it deals with the good and bad of BCH and BSV, because it deals with licenses and patents. Put a pin in the idea that a free market allows conflicting ideas to win their space or earn their fans.
Peer to peer, or peer-to-peer, or P2P is meant to describe an economic model that essentially does not require a central authority, nor does it require their permission. This sounds like the next point below, but it does mean that when a digital transaction can go directly from one person's account to another, only by means of the network that supports the confirmation, safety, and validation of the transaction, it is defined as peer to peer. There is not a bank or other financial entity that has to allow you to send or receive money in this concept.
It would be nice if more things in crypto worked this way. It is both one of the great ironies and one of the great tragedies of crypto, that is tends to accomplish the exact opposite of its concept. In the case of Napster, the reason peer to peer took off so aggressively is that it was hard to locate and jail those who were allowing illegal file distribution, because the files did not reside on the servers or hard drives of the central website owners or those operating the entity. So quickly, we forget the hack, open-source, rickety origins of a $200B+ industry that is crypto, but legality has always been at the heart of its growth, and in this case, if you can't go after every single mining computer and deal with the controller's identity and whether they adhere to the rights in their region without taking on a goose chase that costs more than the value of the entire network, then you simply cannot stop that project from transacting.
On the other hand, there is an irony that is unfortunate, because in many ways, and in increasing ways, crypto is becoming much more centralized, much more controlled, and much more permission-based, than simply driving up to an ATM. That is unfortunate.
I could go on and on about the fact that you still need a program to provide you with a wallet, be it on exchange or in your GOOGLE browser, or on a stick of hardware that may be made in China with the purpose of tracking your activity, and a myriad of other issues. The fact that there is a record of transactions (despite mixers and privacy technology), and there is increasing KYC-based control of access, means that the cool factor of crypto is getting choked out by government over-reach, and very easily could be part of the purpose we're all falling for; money with more control and surveillance than fiat.
Permission is a big thing in crypto. That's a good thing and not necessarily as great as it sounds all wrapped up in a byte-sized cookie of undecided MB capacity.
Not having to be beholden to a 3rd party to grant you the right to move your money wherever you darn well please, is supposed to be the biggest plus in crypto. Most people will buy their first crypto in some form of digital fiat; from a credit card, from a bank account, or in some form of earned commission in electronic cash. This is going to happen either with a CEX or DEX, a centralized exchange or a decentralized exchange. In all cases, the platform has to provide you a way to take your real financial data, validate it, and get it safely into the crypto world, where you are then permitted to enjoy access to your cryptocurrencies of choice at your leisure. If the rule is largely going to be that every online entity requires KYC to permit transactions, then there is no such thing as permission-free. Owning the end-points is kind of the entire ballgame. The only REAL permission-less crypto is that which is already owned, I would say pre-2017. People who have a lot of early crypto, have a lot of fun ways to pass around their funds either with complete privacy or complete transparency of the transactions without the knowledge of the person who owns the sources for deposit/withdrawal. If you can't get crypto to and from digital fiat without having an account that is verified by name and address at the minimum, social security, govt ID, recent utility bill and live photo of your face holding ID in common practice, then how can it possibly be permission-less? The truth is, you are only able to start shaking the shackles of permission once you are already in crypto, again, unless you got in and stayed in years ago.
Here's one of those areas that I would have to imagine Roger and I agree on many philosophical levels, and strongly disagree on some of the facts. Example; Kraken is considered a reputable, even admirable example of a centralized exchange. The owner/founder has often been interviewed and speaks to the struggles of getting choked out by banks freezing their accounts and a lot of the rubbish that goes along with crypto. I mention them, because Roger Ver is among their early Angel investors. Kraken, being fully regulated, requires full-on KYC background checks, including running government searches, collecting, filing, and reporting data to authorities. It's the only way they can play, remember the sandbox, and they are a good example of a good player. They won't throw sand in your eyes, but they will tell the authorities that your eyes were blue and you were 6'2". This is at the opposite end of the pro-silk road position liberally shared in the video. A free market can't exist without boundaries, and unfortunately right now, that means a backwards logic that traps those who just want to enjoy the freedom of access to better money, while protecting many of those who truly want to use crypto for harmful reasons.
In Summary, I find myself conceptually in harmony with statements made (and this is before we really dig in!!!), but simultaneously finding that the reality of those ideals are far from ideal.
We are already in the dystopian part of this whole thing, and once again the major players have failed to deliver the mainstream, and it seems that governments are going to start doing our job for us.
This virus, whether planned or naturally-occurring, is already providing a platform to control, over-reach and tyranny the likes humanity has not seen. Whether you are on one extreme or the other how this is going to pan out, chipped, dipped, clipped and vaccinated, the digital stablecoin talk, government-issued, is going to be the stage that people simply need to be more aware of. People in this day and age tend to be vastly under-educated in human nature, government power, general economics and how these can join together as an all-out war against belief, thought, and individualism.
We need freedom.
Digital makes that possible, but infinitely complex. Now more than ever, we need products that live up to the ideals of the giants of crypto, like Roger and in my book, the guys joining in the discussion in this video.
I hope you found this a bit of food for thought. If so, please share and most importantly; watch the video!
... and for now, Crypto Gordon Freeman, the Free Man, Crypto Super Hero out.