[seagreen]

  If we want it to be secure anyway...

Oh God, I'm _really_ hoping you're being sarcastic.

You've read about the dozens on dozens of compromised exchanges?

You heard about the DAO hack?

You realize that the majority of bitcoin is mined by like a dozen people in China?

Maybe someday we'll get our act together, but right now blockchains are a recipe for FUD and centralization.

(I say this as someone who thinks bitcoin is cool. For instance, the traditional financial system makes it unnecessarily hard to send money overseas, a need bitcoin can fill well. But secure? No.)

[cloudjacker]

tolerable growing pains

all of those things improve the resilience of the implementations

exactly as the original white paper suggested

[CoryG89]

I'm not sure how the centralization improves the resilience of the implementations. Mining pool centralization is definitely a big downside for security on the blockchain. A lot of research is being done in cryptocurrencies looking for ways to discourage this type of centralization.

[cloudjacker]

centralization doesn't, that wasn't a claim I was making or considering

mining pool centralization has ebbs and flows. I'm not concerned about bitcoin's TODAY for example, but maybe tomorrow and at times in the past. There are a lot of blockchains people don't put under much scrutiny, where it turns out there is massive centralization. But this isn't an inherent problem, Satoshi was 100% of Bitcoin's network for a long time.