I think Pete is a turnoff because he is such a bore. I understand the core argument from Saylor is that BTC will be the dominant force at least for this decade, we dont know the tech that could be made 10 years from now.
I think the argument isnt just about the fees, its about it being as decentralised as possible and people being able to run a node as easily as installing an app on their phone and these changes go against that philosophy. More nodes = more decentralisation and strengthen the network or did I miss something?
Yes the argument in theory is that more nodes = decentralized but that's not how it actually works when people can't even use the network. If the number of Bitcoin nodes doubles is it twice as decentralized? How much more security is that really? I would argue they hardly get any benefit in that scenario. There are huge diminishing returns there. A network either works or it doesn't. There isn't much extra benefit after that.
Very true, diminishing returns kicks in there. I guess there must be a certain threshold.
If that’s true than Hive is extremely at risk of takeover since it would take millions not trillions to do same.
Been hearing this since 2012, bitcoin isn’t at high risk of this at all. There would be a fork and it would be dealt with like the hard fork in 2017. If this is truly a big risk how would u trust a network fractionsof a fractions of 1% of its network value? I see you talk about HBD and long term things here being not risk free but low risk. If Bitcoin is at risk we are way worse off no? Obviously nothing is risk free, but this talk of corporate takeover is so overhyped. If something truly risk and serious presents self it will be dealt with. The truth is if the most secure network isn’t secure than we are wasting our time here. Bitcoin will be just fine. It’s always been odd to be anyone sees Bitcoin & Hive not as allies.