Perhaps he is making a lot of profit painting the image of himself as a clever in-your-face thorn in the side of the USA regulators, and others flock to his coattails, but I would much prefer a more clever approach of silent action and anonymity. Ideologically I am mostly aligned with his stance, yet I don't see much value in the in-your-face approach...
World Without Web by Eric S Raymond. |
|
|
|
The other reason is to simply get on the path of being a fully independent implementation that breaks ties with the Satoshi client. As per yesterday's discussion multiple independently developed implementations is a good thing. Sure with multiple implementations there is the risk that one or more are controlled by negative actors, but overall the risk of negative actors taking over is much less with several implementations than one dominate implementation.
In the video I linked, Gregory Maxwell made the point that decentralized systems need consistency more than correctness, because consensus can be lost by technical inconsistency. He makes a strong argument against introducing multiple code bases for full clients at this time. If from the start there was parallel development of multiple full node clients successfully interopting, then the issue is implicitly resolved. Even better to have a standardization process and a test suite, but then your protocol needs to be well contained. Decentralization is hard. This is another strong reason to make the base protocol as simple as possible and layer on top of it. I am backtracking a bit on my stance of the debate over the change to 20MB. After watching that video of Greg, I see Bitcoin is doomed to bloating complexity. You are soon reaching the limit of any changes you can make without blowing up the system. All that spaghetti Greg apparently added to heuristically deal with Sybil attacks is an example of mucking up. This all perfect for the corporations subsuming Bitcoin because as the decentralized crap craters to complexity, the responsibility for the value exchange will fall into their lap. From this standpoint, MP's stance is very astute. We need to rethink the entire thing. But one rule of software is you never rewrite from scratch. You paradigm shift instead and deprecate the old. |
|
|
|
Also there are so many talented developers in the world who are not even working in the crypto-coin space. I really wish we could broaden the scope of crypto-currency to entice more of them (and again I have something specific in mind). Pegged side-chains main attribute is to retain BTC value across chains which afaics seems to be a poor value-added proposition. This is a different focus from Ethereum. I had postulated an idea that the way to solve Ethereum's intractable technical issues are to use a merged mined chain for each custom scripting language and let competition decide how to best structure the balance between permissionless and scaling (but such a design may or may not fit their business model). |
|
|
|
That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.
You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.
Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. If you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all. When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something. At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero. I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible. Here we go again on another interesting intellectual discussion with smooth  Even if we attain fully completed protocols that run entirely decentralized without further oversight from devs, I believe there will be ongoing development of orthogonal wallets and protocols that sit on top of the base protocol which can if widely adopted with the wrong attributes then weaken the decentralization of the base protocol. I realize that if orthogonal designs can weaken the base protocol then the claim of orthogonality is not entirely fulfilled, but a fundamental tenet of computer science is that absolute orthogonality does not exist. Thus it very unlikely that we will get away from needing to entrust someone with development. I have a specific development schedule in mind which involves first releasing a base protocol then layering on top of it. Wouldn't it be better to be anonymous so the development goals can be completed rather than being behind bars and unable to contribute? Even the internet appears to have this issue. The autonomous decentralized base protocols (e.g. TCP/IP, BGP routing, etc) are being subsumed by the public's trust of large corporate portals such as Facebook, Paypal, Google, Yahoo, Coinbase, etc.. However, I do agree with smooth's implied thesis which is that paradigm shifts romp because they are naturally congruent; I think any overthrow of the corporate subsumption of the internet will be such a paradigm shift (and I have one in mind). The issue of trust of an anonymous lead dev is mostly contingent on the attributes of the effort. Certainly some non-anonymous contributors will arrive on the scene and add veracity to any worthwhile project and they may feel they don't have the liability of being the creator. Of course I agree with smooth that the best is for the work to be completed and that is the safest for the developer also at this juncture in history where cryptographers are being thrown in jail in the USA and Australia (and probably more countries to enjoin as the global contagion spreads). It is also probably best to structure protocols and projects such that the most socially contentious portions are orthogonal so that anonymity of the lead dev and the threats are contained to the orthogonal portions. |
|
|
|
The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.
This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system. MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering. I like his views, more and more I see MP for what he truly show he is, a true bitcoiner. I believe the same towards Monero. Being grounded in solid reasoning is a positive trait, but if it becomes a mono-thought and even worse a reputation debt due to grandiose public displays, then it could be counter to the flexibility required to remain rational. Some rambling thoughts... I am usually wary of inflexible, hard-nosed people (because multiple genres of things change, the devil is in the details, and no one is omniscient) and especially if they are playing egotistical mind games and not willing to explain their reasoning amicably and with an open mind. I am flexible enough to be open minded to exceptions. Perhaps I just haven't understood him. But I think it is likely Uncle Sam will win against MP in the end game (I expect to see him taken down eventually). Perhaps he is making a lot of profit painting the image of himself as a clever in-your-face thorn in the side of the USA regulators, and others flock to his coattails, but I would much prefer a more clever approach of silent action and anonymity. Ideologically I am mostly aligned with his stance, yet I don't see much value in the in-your-face approach (because among other reasons we are not at a juncture in history where there will be mass revolution inspired by a call to Common Sense and this is why the leaders of that in-your-face cohort are less amicable and reasonable than Thomas Paine). Also I am apparently not that impressed of him as a user interface designer, web page programmer, or I guess programmer in general, based on this way his MPex options market site works (which I haven't viewed within the past year or so). Functionally I understand it may be sufficient for his audience, so I respect his efficiency given the market and game he is playing. |
|
|
|
We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.
Especially since it was designed to disrupt those who are wanting to disrupt that control system. I am not speculating about intentions; rather I am stating factually what Satoshi's design is and has accomplished. Edit: the caveat I repeat is that Bitcoin has network effects and the Butterfly effects and serving as a reserve currency of potential altcoins raises the possibility that Bitcoin is a Trojan horse on itself. |
|
|
|
2)I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.
2) How does crypto go mainstream with this caveat? Masses trust the herd. Just get the herd moving in one direction and they all follow. |
|
|
|
No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)
Fully anonymous devs with no reputation has its own set of problems. How do you know they aren't working for TPTB from the start? How do we know that named devs aren't working for TPTB? I am nearly sure Gavin is (unwittingly or consciously makes no difference really, he is pragmatic). I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.
That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success. You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs. |
|
|
|
|
I believe either the anonymous coin needs to be truly done and able to run decentralized on auto-pilot, or the lead devs need to be anonymous so they can avoid prosecution. The prosecution of cryptographers has begun.
Note Monero has the same problems with centralization as Bitcoin. Thus it is not done.
|
|
|
|
What am I missing here?
I agree with your points about open-source. His point I think is that if the leaders are taken down and the coin needs further leadership, it might be co-opted by changes from newly inserted lead devs. The underlying point is that coins aren't truly decentralized because users are dumb (or preoccupied and can't be detailed diligent) thus rely on lead devs to the do the right decisions. The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs. |
|
|
|
[gossip about personalities] This seems very plausible. It's also irrelevant. 20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs. You still haven't answered my bolded question below. I have reviewed the pegged side-chains idea at Blockstream. The idea is BTC value can be moved to orthogonal blockchains. Assuming these "pegged coins" remain fungible (which is dubious and probably an incorrect assumption[1]), then in theory the shared-in-common unit-of-account network effects are not hindered, yet the network effects due to interoperability is lost because competing chains are not required to interopt, i.e. spending from one chain to another might require a trip back through the Bitcoin blockchain which defeats the scalability due to constricting the Bitcoin blocksize. Pegged side-chains are a hack that move the same problems that need to be fixed in the main blockchain to the side-chain, but the fundamental problem remains. Worse they destroy interoperability and probably create a huge mess of fungibility. Bottom line is that Bitcoin is an overly complex, highly flawed mess that can not be fixed. There is only one outcome which will be accepted by the masses, which is the one where they are insured and protected by the State, i.e. Coinbase, Paypal, Circle (CPC). Whether this is achieved with huge blocks (much greater than 20 MB eventually) and centralized Bitcoin mining, or CPC interoption on their proprietary "side-chains" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which choice is made now, the effectual outcome on the masses will be the same.[1] For example someone creates a side-chain with anonymity, so then these coins on the Bitcoin blockchain become tainted and subject to blacklisting. BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).
The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years. Zero to $250, by way of $1200. Excellent performance by any definition.
The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.
You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill). The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin. The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.
If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc). I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033). An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money. As for the Gresham's Law.
Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC. Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony. It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.
As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine.  I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value. This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently. Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb? If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic). Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.
The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage. There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).
Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces. Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.
Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between ( even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin), I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then? |
|
|
|
[gossip about personalities] This seems very plausible. It's also irrelevant. 20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs. You still haven't answered my bolded question below. I have reviewed the pegged side-chains idea at Blockstream. The idea is BTC value can be moved to orthogonal blockchains. Assuming these "pegged coins" remain fungible (which is dubious and probably an incorrect assumption[1]), then in theory the shared-in-common unit-of-account network effects are not hindered, yet the network effects due to interoperability is lost because competing chains are not required to interopt, i.e. spending from one chain to another might require a trip back through the Bitcoin blockchain which defeats the scalability due to constricting the Bitcoin blocksize. Pegged side-chains are a hack that move the same problems that need to be fixed in the main blockchain to the side-chain, but the fundamental problem remains. Worse they destroy interoperability and probably create a huge mess of fungibility. Bottom line is that Bitcoin is an overly complex, highly flawed mess that can not be fixed. There is only one outcome which will be accepted by the masses, which is the one where they are insured and protected by the State, i.e. Coinbase, Paypal, Circle (CPC). Whether this is achieved with huge blocks (much greater than 20 MB eventually) and centralized Bitcoin mining, or CPC interoption on their proprietary "side-chains" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which choice is made now, the effectual outcome on the masses will be the same.[1] For example someone creates a side-chain with anonymity, so then these coins on the Bitcoin blockchain become tainted and subject to blacklisting. BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).
The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years. Zero to $250, by way of $1200. Excellent performance by any definition.
The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.
You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill). The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin. The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.
If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc). I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033). An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money. As for the Gresham's Law.
Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC. Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony. It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.
As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine. I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value. This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently. Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb? If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic). Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.
The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage. There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).
Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces. Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.
Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between ( even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin), I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then? |
|
|
|
how could disclosing your point of view on other consensus mechanisms jeopardise your anonymity?
By making it trivial to conclude which future altcoin was actually my design. thats sounds like a "get out" answer to me. I am not trying to tell you to get out if that is what you mean. Feel free to write anything you want. I am not a moderator. I am not trying to escape from addressing it. I actually had to kick myself a few times to stop myself from addressing your post with full details. But this time, I had to hold my tongue. i didnt mean "get out of this thread". more like "get out of having to answer this"  no worries. have you any links to information about this "aliasing error"? first iv heard of it afaik. The last "I" will say about this. I am taking a deeper look at Blockstream and side chains today for the first time. I will report back my findings shortly.
P.S. I am only 10 minutes into the linked video and it is particularly poignant so far. I highly recommend it. So far it appears to be making the case for Monero. It admits Tor is weak against the State, which is a concept I was promulgating since 2013 and was initially resisted (afair by Greg and many others). Good to see that my work in the forum in 2013 finally was accepted. I will say as AnonyMint, I was pushing hard for greater in anonymity starting in 2013 with some posts I made in the anoncoin thread.
The anti-"Eclipse" (Sybil attack mitigation) slide at the 11:45 minute mark is a very important point. An inherent weakness in PoW is the simultaneity requirement which makes network topology so critical (think orphan rates, selfish mining attacks, etc) and which is also difficult to anneal because of the self-referential relativity of the paradigm. This is one of the main fundamental flaws I want to address in crypto currency. I had referred to this recently as "anti-aliasing". Ironically where Greg says Satoshi's solution to decentralized consensus achieved something "not quite as strong" as that which he thought he had proved was impossible, the same applies to my solution to centralized consensus which implicitly resists centralization and scales to micropayment volume.
Another interesting point at 21 minutes, that multisig negatively impacts decentralization and scaling. This is another fundamental aspect my solution fixes.
...
Regarding Greg's redefinition of Cryptography at the 40+ minute mark, he is on the right track but I fundamentally disagree with his definition because it presumes we could both exist and information could be entirely free, i.e. it is vacuous because it presumes mutually incongruent assumptions. The generative essence is that the entropy of the universe is trending to maximum (i.e. not infinity) according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (refer to the upthread philosophical discussion about existence and theoretic physics). I would instead define, "Cryptography is the art of structuring information such that hidden entropy doesn't collapse to 0 over known domains in time and computability".
|
|
|
|
This is the first video I've seen of Gregory Maxwell. This adds some confirmation for me of my upthread speculation about Greg seeing himself as critic and the smartest person in the room. He specifically states in this video that his role is more as a reviewer than a doer (even his stated goal is maximum impact with the least coding...which is a desirable goal but only if it is not the only one), right after admitting that he was wrong in 2004 about decentralized consensus being impossible. The audacity. Socrates taught us that recognizing that we are not omniscient is a primary attribute of cognition. (Edit: in the "Selection Cryptography" portion of the video, he elaborates on why his role is appropriate — "Pragmatic has its place, but beware against biasing against competence") No doubt this is a very smart guy with powerful crypto+math domain knowledge who can add considerable analysis and even new ideas. You'd definitely want him on your team (I would) if he can contain himself to a non-leadership role. But hand him the keys and you are likely to go too far down dead-end paths—e.g. CoinJoin—because my impression of him so far (limited interaction) is he is more of a narrow space thinker who doesn't pay as much attention to what is going on in the kitchen when he is in the basement (unless if he a lead on a very narrow space, orthogonally contained project domain such as an audio codec). And this is precisely what I told him the very first time he spanked me in public in these forums; I warned him that I am more of a pragmatic generalist and that we tend to paradigm shift around people like him (which is precisely what I am hoping to do accomplish this year). The first exposure I had to Greg was when I was very impressed by his forum post containing analysis of a proposed proof-of-work hash for something bytemaster was proposing (I forget the details). I am taking a deeper look at Blockstream and side chains today for the first time. I will report back my findings shortly. P.S. I am only 10 minutes into the linked video and it is particularly poignant so far. I highly recommend it. So far it appears to be making the case for Monero. It admits Tor is weak against the State, which is a concept I was promulgating since 2013 and was initially resisted (afair by Greg and many others). Good to see that my work in the forum in 2013 finally was accepted. I will say as AnonyMint, I was pushing hard for greater in anonymity starting in 2013 with some posts I made in the anoncoin thread. The anti-"Eclipse" (Sybil attack mitigation) slide at the 11:45 minute mark is a very important point. An inherent weakness in PoW is the simultaneity requirement which makes network topology so critical (think orphan rates, selfish mining attacks, etc) and which is also difficult to anneal because of the self-referential relativity of the paradigm. This is one of the main fundamental flaws I want to address in crypto currency. I had referred to this recently as "anti-aliasing". Ironically where Greg says Satoshi's solution to decentralized consensus achieved something "not quite as strong" as that which he thought he had proved was impossible, the same applies to my solution to centralized consensus which implicitly resists centralization and scales to micropayment volume. Another interesting point at 21 minutes, that multisig negatively impacts decentralization and scaling. This is another fundamental aspect my solution fixes. Schnorr as a potential solution to this problem for Bitcoin lacks optional accountability (or loses some of the scaling and decentralization advantages with Greg's TREE scheme) and has a simultaneity issue vaguely analogously related to the problem with CoinJoin. Regarding Greg's redefinition of Cryptography at the 40+ minute mark, he is on the right track but I fundamentally disagree with his definition because it presumes we could both exist and information could be entirely free, i.e. it is vacuous because it presumes mutually incongruent assumptions. The generative essence is that the entropy of the universe is trending to maximum (i.e. not infinity) according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (refer to the upthread philosophical discussion about existence and theoretic physics). I would instead define, " Cryptography is the art of structuring information such that hidden entropy doesn't collapse to 0 over known domains in time and computability".
|
|
|
|
Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork. If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it. In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so. People are sheep that will go with the loudest/best advertising, regardless of benefit/detriment. Just look at every other system in existence. I should have read these replies first. Seems others agree with my stance. I will take another hiatus (maybe more than a few days and hopefully forever). |
|
|
|
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately). You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now? Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork. Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically. https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer. if they get there way, they wont have any power to change things it will be a democracy of users who decide, luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet. Same reply as I have to rocks. You apparently haven't been paying attention to my posts. |
|
|
|
Adam Back is still pinning hopes on alternative solutions...
One theory I have entertained is that Adam and Greg both see Bitcoin's design is highly flawed, and they've been trying to forestall hoping a solution could be found. I bet they on their own long ago realized the points I have written about centralization are correct. They've tried to keep their true appraisals hidden and work for solutions, but haven't really found any (but they don't dare admit that). P.S. My past few posts about people are highly speculative and not intended to be statements of fact. |
|
|
|
One classic Gmax thing is to make every statement interpretable in a safe way. For example, today's reddit post where someone was accusing Peter Todd of being biased against an increase because of his affiliation with Viacoin. I don't think there is much merit to the accusation (though that doesn't excuse Todd's sensationalism), but in Greg's reply he said, " Welcome to Reddit, 'Viacoin66'!" He will say something that looks safe and unantagonizing (just the standard Reddit welcome), but his real purpose is to point out that the account was bran new and imply that it was obviously created to troll Viacoin/Todd. He's probably right about that, but nevertheless it's an example of what I mean where he'll say whatever serves any sort of low-blow purpose in a debate as long as it can be interpreted as not being that. I guess with his security testing mindset he has become Mr. Plausible Deniability. You almost got it. He is winning the "I am the smartest dude here" argument to himself. By obscuring his point, he further proves to himself that he is smarter than everyone else that misses the point. And those who are smart enough to get it, will realize that he is speaking to them, while throwing off the lesser dogs from the scent so he won't have to waste his time arguing with them. He lives in his own world. For as long as he is correct, then he has won. He is very comfortable with Adam Back because he views him as an intellectual peer. It isn't about real world results for him, although he doesn't rationalize it that way. In his mind, it probably plays something like, "by being the most correct, we will attain the best outcome". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
