What to Conclude from the XT Fork Proposition

The XT "debate" on bitcoin forums is becoming deafening. On other forums, I have tried to argue a monetary perspective as opposed to a technical one.

Unfortunately, most of the protagonists in the various strands of argument seem to be unaware of what economic objective cryptocurrencies have (creating money). They have all re-invented an objective according to their own particular agenda, and most of those objectives are technical, not economic.

For example:

 • the cryptonote people think hiding the blockchain is the most important priority

 • the monopolist lobby think that consolidation of a one-world crypto is the priority

 • the hardcore miners think that observance of published supply profile is the priority

 • the XT/20Mb block people think that large blocks are the priority

 • the security maniacs think that small blocks are the priority

What do you notice about all these priorities ? - they are all in conflict with one another.

Hiding the blockchain to support privacy is in conflict with keeping the blockchain public to support transparency. Diversifying bitcoin's appeal using sidechains is in conflict with the requirement of optimising monetary fungibility. Increasing blocksize to facilitate network capacity is in conflict with a myriad of things including security, efficiency and client accessibility.

Why are all these priorities in conflict and why is cryptocurrency encountering these problems ?

Because they all have to be reconciled within a logically mono-tiered network. The network functions according to the principles of unity (multiple units of cloned logic that don't help each other in any way other than providing redundancy) as opposed to harmony (multiple units of diverse logic that are complimentary in function).

In the 1950's and 60's, computing science determined unambiguously that functional diversity amongst network peers was far more powerful than "unity" (redundant, mono-tiered logic) and client-server computing was born. This then found its way onto desktops in the eighties in the form of client-server database computing and client-server web computing. 

The problem with that paradigm for decentralised cryptocurrencies is that a 'server' (as in web server or database server) represented a single point of failure and also conflicted with the objective of creating a 'trustless' monetary media.

What Dash has done is migrate the old client-server physical model to a logical one so that the server element can be reproduced redundantly just as the client can, thereby creating a decentralised network exhibiting a logical diversity that no other cryptocurrency has.

I don’t think most people realise the huge significance of this. By definition, there is no server and no client anymore so the network is simply flat and diverse. Despite that, it is still able to operate in an articulated mode with 2 tiers of complimentary logic.

As far as doing an investment appraisal of this characteristic, 2 questions spring to mind:

 • what are the technical implications of a cryptocurrency network with logical diversity over one with no logical diversity?

 • what are the monetary implications of a cryptocurrency network with logical diversity over one with no logical diversity?

These are the 2 questions I've asked myself over the last year, however, never did I get more relevant answers than during the current XT vs Core debate in the Bitcoin forums:

The technical implications are that a logically diversified network can independently optimise technical properties that would otherwise be in conflict with each other. *

The monetary implications are that the electronic monetary token known as 'Dash' can exist as a totally fungible unit which is not dependent (nor derives any of its value from) financial superstructures. **

Cryptocurrencies have arrived at another transition phase right now because the predicted 2015 revaluation hasn’t happened. Bitcoin may well continue to be the “crypto reserve” but it isn’t capable of diversified protocol logic and Dash is. It doesn’t support native coin mixing and Dash does. Its technical priorities are now dictated by the personal egos of 5 developers while Dash’s will be determined by its holders to whom developers will be accountable.

Native coin mixing in a public context is a basic premise of what defines ‘cash’, not just digital cash - any cash. Dash adds all these subtle monetary enhancements without compromising the one thing that made bitcoin work without a trusted counterparty - the public blockchain.

I keep investigating other cryptos and I keep concluding that while they are all creating very interesting solutions, they are not creating money. Bitcoin is (in a confused way) and Dash is (in an organised way).

------------------------------------------------

* - Capacity can be addressed without recourse to blocksize. Confirmation time can be addressed without recourse to blocktime. Governance can be addressed without recourse to developer politics.

** - PORTABILITY and FUNGIBILITY are monetary properties which the Dash network is optimising far and away more than any other electronic monetary token. For PORTABILITY read [bitcoin-protocol compliance and InstantX]. For FUNGIBILITY read [Darksend] which supports anonymity in a public blockchain. Something that no other cryptocurrency does anywhere near to the same extent.

Written by Toknormal

Source: Bitcointalk.org