Issues » 55

Gavin wrote four more posts. Read them.

One of her worst pieces yet IMHO. Therein you learn that Kaminska doesn’t approve of people’s right to do whatever the heck they want with their capital.

Another point of view on the block size. The author says that economically, it doesn’t really matter.

Decentralization has recently been touted as the mother of all solutions to our worldly problems. It’s not true.

I don’t think the author has really grokked Bitcoin, but I still include this article because it’s interesting to read the opinion of an otherwise shrewd technology analyst.

Network hashrate drop, 400kb average block size.

Lots of block makers have lost 20 - 30% of their total hashrate this week.

A decent discussion on a controversial topic. If you don’t care about the price and or think it doesn’t matter, just skip this.

Nasdaq, the US exchanges operator, this year plans to increase the number of trials with the decentralised network that underpins bitcoin.

A prediction markets set up for Bitcoin development decisions such as the block size debate.

Well, that’s a pretty solid board.

I'd say don’t touch their apps.

We initiate the study of decentralized namespaces and the market for names in such systems. Our extensive empirical analysis of Namecoin reveals a system in disrepair.

Here’s how a blockchain could fix it. Technically though that’s only true with a secure blockchain, and only Bitcoin provides that so far.

One could compare the mining approach to block generation to a short-term dictatorship, while the validator approach is more akin to democracy. While both systems can be exploited or used for good (the Roman Republic elected their dictators in times of need, while democracy can spiral into mob rule), the democracy of validators requires more parties to be malicious before the system becomes compromised.

A blockchain that links servers to websites would prevent MITM attacks, and also facilitate revocation and other things.