[2018-11-09]Bitcoin Trailblazer Jeff Garzik Says Bitcoin ‘Unquestionably. . .

[anamie]

Bitcoin Trailblazer Jeff Garzik Says Bitcoin ‘Unquestionably a Success’ as Store of Value

Bitcoin (BTC) pioneer Jeff Garzik has said that while the leading cryptocurrency may not have evolved into a means of payment as he first envisaged, it is still “unquestionably a success” as a store of value, in an interview with Bloomberg Nov. 9.   

Speaking soon after Bitcoin’s 10th anniversary, Garzik – reportedly the “third-biggest contributor” to Bitcoin’s code and one of Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto's key collaborators – told the publication:

“It hasn’t evolved in the direction of high-volume payments, which is something we thought about in the very early days: getting merchants to accept Bitcoins. But on the store-of-value side it’s unquestionably a success." 

Bloomberg cites a recent study from blockchain intelligence firm Chainalysis that suggests Bitcoin’s use as private money in commerce is indeed on the decline, even as its popularity as an asset – as digital “gold” – has had significant traction among investors.

Unfazed by the twists and turns of the project’s evolution, Garzik stated, “Bitcoin is an organism, it’s something that evolves.” He then adopted a solicitous tone, remarking that, “as a father I enjoy watching my kids grow up, even as they make mistakes or grow in ways that I wouldn’t expect."

As Bloomberg outlines, Garzik began writing software code for Bitcoin as early as July 2010, after reading a blog post about the as yet incipient project. The article portrays the crypto trailblazer at the time as “working remotely for open-source powerhouse Red Hat Inc. from an RV parked in an empty lot in Raleigh, North Carolina.”

Readmore: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-trailblazer-jeff-garzik-says-bitcoin-unquestionably-a-success-as-store-of-value

[1714895309]

1714895309

[1714895309]

1714895309

[buwaytress]

All credit due to all personalities in the space, whoever they are and who they've become. At least there's a concession that lots of things could have been thought of in the beginning but it's no one's fault that they weren't, and it's not a measure of failure, rather what could have been done better. And hindsight is always wiser than the present, too, who's to know what would have happened had "high volume transactions" been a focus instead of the basics outlined in the white paper?

Wasn't it just a week ago though that some other guy talked about the Bitcoin experiment possibly failing but arguably already successful as a store of value?

[figmentofmyass]

All credit due to all personalities in the space, whoever they are and who they've become. At least there's a concession that lots of things could have been thought of in the beginning but it's no one's fault that they weren't, and it's not a measure of failure, rather what could have been done better.

i've gotta hand it to the guy---he's been trying to increase the block size limit since 2010! if he's one thing, he's consistent. i'm glad the community rejected his ideas then and now though. with his changes, the network may have seen increased transaction volume (because there would be no motivation to seek scaling efficiency), but i doubt it wouldn't have been better.

at least his attitude seems much more at peace now. the fanatical big blocker thing from 2016-17 wasn't a good look.

[gentlemand]

i've gotta hand it to the guy---he's been trying to increase the block size limit since 2010! if he's one thing, he's consistent. i'm glad the community rejected his ideas then and now though. with his changes, the network may have seen increased transaction volume (because there would be no motivation to seek scaling efficiency), but i doubt it wouldn't have been better.

at least his attitude seems much more at peace now. the fanatical big blocker thing from 2016-17 wasn't a good look.

We've just had the 1 year anniversary of S2X. The handful of people who did run it found that it immediately broke. Since he had so long to get his wants in action, how could it have been so crap?

Then United Bitcoin came along which had the most fucked up 'fork' mechanism dripping with KYC that I've ever seen which promptly disappeared. I presume at some point since 2010 his brain was deprived of oxygen for a reasonably lengthy period of time.

[InvoKing]

The bitcoin/blockchain technology success doesn't need anyone approval, it is obvious.
I wish one day, we could have a better view about the beginning of the bitcoin idea and its creator/early adopters. Many questions remain not fully answered but maybe one day it will be clearer.

[Kakmakr]

Try telling that to the people who bought at $19 000 last year. 

Yes, sure if you are a early adopter like him, then $6000+ might still be a good store of value, but for the majority of the people who have entered the scene last year, this might be their worst store of value. 

I am also glad his push for Block size scaling failed, because we would never have scaled as a global payment network, if we followed that roadmap. 

[veleten]

Try telling that to the people who bought at $19 000 last year.  

Yes, sure if you are a early adopter like him, then $6000+ might still be a good store of value, but for the majority of the people who have entered the scene last year, this might be their worst store of value.  

I am also glad his push for Block size scaling failed, because we would never have scaled as a global payment network, if we followed that roadmap.  

oh yeah, if he has given away more coins than many of us combined will ever see in our lives (15.700+ allegedly) and must be holding ten times that if not more,
then bitcoin is  certainly a store of value
I believe it can evolve as a payment network , lets wait and see what does the Lightning network offer when it is fully operational
meanwhile if not store of value,bitcoin is a perfect speculative instrument for sure

 

[hatshepsut93]

Try telling that to the people who bought at $19 000 last year. 

Yes, sure if you are a early adopter like him, then $6000+ might still be a good store of value, but for the majority of the people who have entered the scene last year, this might be their worst store of value. 

I am also glad his push for Block size scaling failed, because we would never have scaled as a global payment network, if we followed that roadmap. 

But if we ignore the price, the technology has proved itself to be very good, Bitcoin doesn't suffer from bugs, unlike other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin doesn't suffer from 51% attacks and other consensus failures. But sadly people like Garzik don't understand that Bitcoin succeeded as store of value thanks to small blocksize and big block Bitcoin would quickly turn into a mess like other altcoins.

[gentlemand]

But if we ignore the price, the technology has proved itself to be very good, Bitcoin doesn't suffer from bugs, unlike other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin doesn't suffer from 51% attacks and other consensus failures. But sadly people like Garzik don't understand that Bitcoin succeeded as store of value thanks to small blocksize and big block Bitcoin would quickly turn into a mess like other altcoins.

We just had a big ass bug. And I'm sure there are plenty of little niggles we never hear about that don't massively matter. The difference is the thousands of eyes pointing towards it all intent on making it as good as it can be. No one cares if the average shitcoin is broken as long as they can play with it on an exchange.

[BitHodler]

But sadly people like Garzik don't understand that Bitcoin succeeded as store of value thanks to small blocksize and big block Bitcoin would quickly turn into a mess like other altcoins.

At some point the base block size needs to be increased, because we're nearing a point at which we're exhausting all the voluntary options to better utilize the current block space, and I'm sure that the next bull run is that deadline.

SegWit won't ever be globally utilized with how the big block camp controls such a large percentage of the ecosystem, that we should be happy with even 60% support, because there simply isn't much more to gain.

LN will take some time to be user friendly and safe enough for everyone to use. It might even take 12-24 months from where we are today. That's why I seriously hope to not face another bull run any time soon.

[gentlemand]

At some point the base block size needs to be increased, because we're nearing a point at which we're exhausting all the voluntary options to better utilize the current block space, and I'm sure that the next bull run is that deadline.

Can you imagine how a hard fork to increase block size would play out? Because I can't. Everything conceivable has been thrown at it to stop one. I can't see that changing despite any pressing need that pops up.

Every day it doesn't happen makes the possibility ever more remote.

[hatshepsut93]

We just had a big ass bug. And I'm sure there are plenty of little niggles we never hear about that don't massively matter. The difference is the thousands of eyes pointing towards it all intent on making it as good as it can be. No one cares if the average shitcoin is broken as long as they can play with it on an exchange.

But this bug got fixed before it could get exploited, unlike the DAO fiasco and other altcoin fails. Bitcoin so far has never made people lose big amounts of money.

At some point the base block size needs to be increased, because we're nearing a point at which we're exhausting all the voluntary options to better utilize the current block space, and I'm sure that the next bull run is that deadline.

Blocksize will never be increased just because it "needs" to be increased, because the blocks are full and there's a huge backlog growing. The devs will only agree to increase the blocksize when they will be confident that it won't harm the network. Maybe it will happen in a next few years, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10, it's really hard to say.

[1Referee]

The devs will only agree to increase the blocksize when they will be confident that it won't harm the network. Maybe it will happen in a next few years, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10, it's really hard to say.

It won't happen. Bitcoin isn't BCash where the far majority of the nodes are operated by just a few players licking each other's ass.

It's already near impossible to get the majority to upgrade to the most recent core versions, let alone have people line up to upgrade simultaneously. The risks by far aren't worth the 'gain' we would see kick in. Bitcoin has proven that users aiming for quality and security are willing to pay higher fees to obtain a spot in the next block.

On top of that, there isn't even a need to increase the blocksize with how we still aren't dealing with non stop full blocks. The backlog that forms during intensive day time usage hours is taken care of during the night. Fees are currently less than a penny. Even if the fees do a x100 it's still a dollar.

The main obstacle are the shitty clients not being able to properly calculate fees. They significantly inflate fees when the mempool fills up, which is unnecessary.

[dreamhouse]

Sounds like the Bitcoin now becomes a collectible with values... I would like to see it more as a valuable trading token, such as gold.

[figmentofmyass]

But sadly people like Garzik don't understand that Bitcoin succeeded as store of value thanks to small blocksize and big block Bitcoin would quickly turn into a mess like other altcoins.

At some point the base block size needs to be increased, because we're nearing a point at which we're exhausting all the voluntary options to better utilize the current block space, and I'm sure that the next bull run is that deadline.

SegWit won't ever be globally utilized with how the big block camp controls such a large percentage of the ecosystem, that we should be happy with even 60% support, because there simply isn't much more to gain.

if fees rise significantly, the market will be driven to segwit and other voluntary upgrades like schnorr signatures. users will seek services with lower fees and services will attempt to capture that demand. that's just rational incentive at work. fee pressure = real motivation to optimize transaction size/batching and also real motivation to build things like LN. i'm not so pessimistic about it.

[BitHodler]

if fees rise significantly, the market will be driven to segwit and other voluntary upgrades like schnorr signatures. users will seek services with lower fees and services will attempt to capture that demand. that's just rational incentive at work. fee pressure = real motivation to optimize transaction size/batching and also real motivation to build things like LN. i'm not so pessimistic about it.

Schnorr is quite far away and doesn't translate into much of an advantage if you don't consolidate multiple inputs. At best it will result in a slight throughput increase, but that advantage is gone quickly with more demand for block space.

LN is far away from becoming rookie friendly, so that's not much we can do with right now. What we do have right now is SegWit, and there is no way the big block camp is going to change anything about their anti SegWit campaign.

This isn't 2016/2017 anymore. We're dealing with way more entities all trying to use the network at the same time. One spark causing the market to bounce up and down again will result in the fees to explode.

It's not about being pessimistic, but more realistic.

[bbc.reporter]

Why do the mainstream media listen to him and give him the publicity. He is not a bitcoin trailblazer, he attacked bitcoin by creating segwit2x because he also was with the group of people that thought bitcoin would be better as a payment system, not a store of value.

[gentlemand]

Why do the mainstream media listen to him and give him the publicity. He is not a bitcoin trailblazer, he attacked bitcoin by creating segwit2x because he also was with the group of people that thought bitcoin would be better as a payment system, not a store of value.

He was there in the earliest of days and that still gives you considerable weight, in the eyes of some at least, no matter how batty, slutty and compromised you become further down the road. Considering some cabbage who arrived in crypto a few months back can get on TV making meaningless predictions, he's going to be perceived as valid.

[figmentofmyass]

if fees rise significantly, the market will be driven to segwit and other voluntary upgrades like schnorr signatures. users will seek services with lower fees and services will attempt to capture that demand. that's just rational incentive at work. fee pressure = real motivation to optimize transaction size/batching and also real motivation to build things like LN. i'm not so pessimistic about it.

Schnorr is quite far away and doesn't translate into much of an advantage if you don't consolidate multiple inputs. At best it will result in a slight throughput increase, but that advantage is gone quickly with more demand for block space.

LN is far away from becoming rookie friendly, so that's not much we can do with right now. What we do have right now is SegWit, and there is no way the big block camp is going to change anything about their anti SegWit campaign.

This isn't 2016/2017 anymore. We're dealing with way more entities all trying to use the network at the same time. One spark causing the market to bounce up and down again will result in the fees to explode.

It's not about being pessimistic, but more realistic.

you seem pessimistic about fees rising. i welcome it. i think rising fees drives innovation and optimization by users and businesses. it also forces us to pay closer to the actual cost of transactions, rather than always piggy backing on the mining subsidy. i'm happy to pay 100x the current fees or much more eventually. sure, i would transact less often (on-chain at least) but hey, this is how we prevent a tragedy of the commons.

[bbc.reporter]

Why do the mainstream media listen to him and give him the publicity. He is not a bitcoin trailblazer, he attacked bitcoin by creating segwit2x because he also was with the group of people that thought bitcoin would be better as a payment system, not a store of value.

He was there in the earliest of days and that still gives you considerable weight, in the eyes of some at least, no matter how batty, slutty and compromised you become further down the road. Considering some cabbage who arrived in crypto a few months back can get on TV making meaningless predictions, he's going to be perceived as valid.

Yes but if the mainstream news media give him more publicity than someone in the bitcoin core development team, the crowd of new people going in the cryptospace would think he and his group are the influencers.

Also, I predict the next Bloomberg interview on him would be about his new project hehehe.