Gary Gensler: "Bitcoin is not that decentralized"

[d5000]

LN is the IOU game of buy now settle later.. basically credit card.. you need to settle up at end of month-year
majority of LN services offer instant balance.. (meaning no funding lock created to take in your funds to be in your control)
where you then have to pay down that IOU balance at a separate time.. yep LN is mostly more resembling credit card

Your analogy is wrong. If I buy liquidity on a Lightning Service Provider, I'll have to pay them. If they provide me some free liquidity at the start as a promotional measure, this is completely independent from Lightning's concept.
If I manage my Lightning channel by myself then I also do an upfront payment to create the channel.
Where is the "credit"?
You can use LN in a "centralized" way "trusting" a third party but that's not the way it was designed. It's like holding your BTC on Binance ...

im not a "big blocker" because the group that push the term "big blocker" are pushing it to mean GB blocks asap extremes

Everything above 4 MB is "big blocks" in my opinion.

a. de cludging the 4mb block code to not be 1mb base 3mb witness and instead a open 4mb space that can be fully utilised by even legacy and or the other tx formats
    thus allowing more transactions, rather then junk unrelated to transacting
b. penalising the spammers and bloaters(not everyone) so that less spam/bloat = more room for genuine transactions

You actually contradict yourself here. If you try to "penalize" spammers then you'll get even more difficult to cleanup spam like Doginals or Stampchain, which are more difficult to detect because they use transactions resembling ordinary "payment" transactions. OP_RETURN was created to prevent that.
The witness discount has its reasons.

c. re-implementing hard validation code that counts and validates all bytes to have a purpose and lean preference = more transactions

Again, how do you want to detect spam not using a known scheme like Ordinals, but another obscuranted method?

d. not LEAPING blocksize, nor moving blocksize via core dev politics, but SCALING in adjustments based on fill rate and fee of a math formulae that if reaching a threshold of prolonged congestion, then the blocksize can increase at a set milestone all nodes know the formulae of(much like node know difficulty formulae), a rule in nodes to be in consensus to agree on. without dev politics(god mode) decisions

In general I'm not against this idea, I have supported it actually multiple times. It could however be quite challenging to find a formula which can't be gamed.

And I guess if you're against L2 solutions then I guess your formula would be quite elastic, i.e. reacting fast to congestion. But as you can't distinguish spam from legit transactions (it's impossible, believe me) then you invite the spammers to spam the network even more with such a formula -> and then you're again helping centralization (Yeah! We're back on topic!). The formula thus would have to be extremely conservative, also to ensure a fee market can develop (fee market does not mean $100 fees though, but it should be able to go significantly over $0.10 in times of high demand.)

if you had a level head. and a actual inclination to think for yourself about whats best for bitcoin
you would not be following the idiot brigade diatribe of trying to get everyone else off bitcoin and whilst saying that the junk should not be stopped

I suppose that you have good intentions for BTC, but you're simply unrealistic if you think spamming can be stopped "the Luke-Jr way", i.e. with a hard-coded "spam control" like Ordisrespector.

PS: My personal hopes on how spam could be stopped or at least made less attractive is ZK tech like in this thread, which would allow full nodes to ignore arbitrary data.

[1714852424]

1714852424

[1714852424]

1714852424

[1714852424]

1714852424

[1714852424]

1714852424

[1714852424]

1714852424

[franky1]

LN is the IOU game of buy now settle later.. basically credit card.. you need to settle up at end of month-year
majority of LN services offer instant balance.. (meaning no funding lock created to take in your funds to be in your control)
where you then have to pay down that IOU balance at a separate time.. yep LN is mostly more resembling credit card

Your analogy is wrong. If I buy liquidity on a Lightning Service Provider, I'll have to pay them. If they provide me some free liquidity at the start as a promotional measure, this is completely independent from Lightning's concept.
If I manage my Lightning channel by myself then I also do an upfront payment to create the channel.
Where is the "credit"?
You can use LN in a "centralized" way "trusting" a third party but that's not the way it was designed. It's like holding your BTC on Binance ...

i NEVER said they GIFT you 'free liquidity promotion'.. i said they credit you liquidity(give you a credit limit) which you have to pay back + a fee(interest) for the amount you use
they just call it 'renting' to hide the game of credit

as for you managing your own channel using upfront funds locked by you:
(a) then offer someone balance(renting your balance out) from your channel output which you then need to settle later where they need to pay you for "rent"
or
(B)you want them to equally offer their side balance to you..

you are in (a) a loan manager or (b) each offering mutual loans to each other and settle later

if you just use your balance for you to buy goods or services(no renting out balance).. you are doing a buy now settle later of the goods. where you IOU them. (you took out a loan that settles later)
..if the goods supplier is a hop+ away
you are taking out a credit line with your channel partner so you owe him. and he takes out a pay later loan with good supplier he needs to settle later. where you gets the goods before settling the credit/loan
..
and in all cases of using LN... the payments are not confirmed on the blockchain and terms(states/commitments) can change before settlement . meaning they are all IOU where the IOU agreement can change, until channel is closed and everything is settled.. the only question is who owes who whilst channels are open

so yes LN is a credit scheme, where 99% people are the borrower and only a lucky few get to independently open channels with their own coin locks to be a loan officer

[franky1]

im not a "big blocker" because the group that push the term "big blocker" are pushing it to mean GB blocks asap extremes

Everything above 4 MB is "big blocks" in my opinion.

4.1mb is not big blocker..
heck we are 8 years passed the cries that 2mb was big. we are even 7 years passed where core devs thought(admitted) that 4mb was not detrimental to the network
thing have moved on since (moores law), even 6mb 8mb today is not "big blocker" detrimental to the network. but dev politics are not ready to change their roadmap

hard drives of 4TB are not $thousands, heck they are not even multiple $hundreds. heck they are not even sing $hundred any more..
a 4TB hard drive that can store ANOTHER ten more years* of block data for the whopping hard drive purchase price of 2tx fee's of 2 months ago congestion rate rate or just 20 tx fee minimum whilst no congestion

i find it funny how people think a $50 hard drive for 14year of old data +10 years* of future data is a economical threat to bitcoin.. but a $25 fee for 1 tx is in their silly minds not a threat but a expectation for the future (facepalm)
funny part is more people have avoided bitcoin due to the fee. not due to hard drives..

so hard drives are not the problem so please do the actual maths and realise those idiots you copy screaming "big blockers" are not talking about 4.1-8mb blocks.. they are talking about GB blocks.. as their exaggeration to their exaggeration of how they want to make bitcoin scaling feel like a non-option by the idiot screamers you copy words of pretending when others talk about scaling (small progressive adjustments via many methods, efforts) are in the minds of the screamers you copy words from pretend scaling is GB network threatening blocks just to try to get the scaling talk to stop. so that the only solution talk is of migrating everyone to subnetworks, because they want to promote the faulty subnetwork as the only option, plus its free promotion if they can get people to not offer other options

by them screaming exaggerations of 'blockchain cant cope with 'big blocks' (exaggerated GB size leaps).. its their attempt to try to quash people from even discussing or making proposals for actual rational SCALING(which is not just increasing blocksize but scaling tx count within blocks via many option),.. the silly idiots want to pretend the only bitcoin options was GB or migrate people offchain..
they dont want people talking about the multitude of rational options.. and just want to pretend those wanting scaling must belong in some GB group of threat.. (facepalm, tut, laugh, shakes head)

(*<600gb so far plus 10years of 4mb(4*525000) = <2.7TB)

a. de cludging the 4mb block code to not be 1mb base 3mb witness and instead a open 4mb space that can be fully utilised by even legacy and or the other tx formats
    thus allowing more transactions, rather then junk unrelated to transacting
b. penalising the spammers and bloaters(not everyone) so that less spam/bloat = more room for genuine transactions

You actually contradict yourself here. If you try to "penalize" spammers then you'll get even more difficult to cleanup spam like Doginals or Stampchain, which are more difficult to detect because they use transactions resembling ordinary "payment" transactions. OP_RETURN was created to prevent that.
The witness discount has its reasons.

do you know whats great about code.. code creates rules, creates formulaes and creates policy
code can limit how many op returns can be used. to ensure tx stay lead.
code can do alot of things..

c. re-implementing hard validation code that counts and validates all bytes to have a purpose and lean preference = more transactions

Again, how do you want to detect spam not using a known scheme like Ordinals, but another obscuranted method?

bloat is detectable by bytes not part of the input output of value
spam can be detected by the UTXO age being spent to often
EG someone with a 1 confirm can be set as a 144x fee to attain priority
someone with a 144 confirm only needs to pay 1x fee to attain priority

d. not LEAPING blocksize, nor moving blocksize via core dev politics, but SCALING in adjustments based on fill rate and fee of a math formulae that if reaching a threshold of prolonged congestion, then the blocksize can increase at a set milestone all nodes know the formulae of(much like node know difficulty formulae), a rule in nodes to be in consensus to agree on. without dev politics(god mode) decisions

In general I'm not against this idea, I have supported it actually multiple times. It could however be quite challenging to find a formula which can't be gamed.

and you think dev politics cant be gamed...

And I guess if you're against L2 solutions then I guess your formula would be quite elastic, i.e. reacting fast to congestion. But as you can't distinguish spam from legit transactions (it's impossible, believe me) then you invite the spammers to spam the network even more with such a formula -> and then you're again helping centralization (Yeah! We're back on topic!). The formula thus would have to be extremely conservative, also to ensure a fee market can develop (fee market does not mean $100 fees though, but it should be able to go significantly over $0.10 in times of high demand.)

subnetworks (next gen not the current flawed sandbox offerings) will have niches.. but to presume every needs to migrate away from bitcoin into the singular flawed subnetwork you promote and idolise.. thats where you lose me and i laugh at you

as for your other assumptions... ill just tut and laugh.. ill give you some more time to actually think about a proper rebuttal rather then the one you gave
hint: recently conjestion was 2500 average tx per 4mb cludgy bloated block paying $20 each last month is where people give up using bitcoin daily and just didnt bother using bitcoin for months.. which leads to centralisation via avoidance
however
(in a congestion scenario of blocks of~ 8mb best case (if things got fully efficient, lean where every byte counts again)

30,000 tx (of lean tx, uncludged block format, de spammed, debloated) $2 per tx during congestion is more for a mining pool then the 2500 x $20 current congestion.. but users pay less
.. its economics. more space for more tx(and more erognomics of the space, and other things) means people pay less.. but total fee becomes more

if you had a level head. and a actual inclination to think for yourself about whats best for bitcoin
you would not be following the idiot brigade diatribe of trying to get everyone else off bitcoin and whilst saying that the junk should not be stopped

I suppose that you have good intentions for BTC, but you're simply unrealistic if you think spamming can be stopped "the Luke-Jr way", i.e. with a hard-coded "spam control" like Ordisrespector.

again ill give you time to come up with a better rebuttal then you just said, and just laugh and tut
the presumptions you make of me are more laughable of the ones i make of you
i have never even said anything that sounds like "lukes way" yet i can quote you many times sounding like the idiot brigade that promote off-ramping everyone over to the single subnetwork they call "solution" and your other sily buzzword you repeat without independent thought

PS: My personal hopes on how spam could be stopped or at least made less attractive is ZK tech like in this thread, which would allow full nodes to ignore arbitrary data.

nodes without FULL storage..
nodes without FULL verification..
are not.. wait for it.. [drum role]..... FULL nodes
they would be considered pruned, stripped, bridged, downstream nodes

ill give an example
in the 2016-2017+ era of node versions

a 0.11 (presegwit node) peer connecting to a segwit activated node.. has the segwit active node strip the witness and hands the pre segwit node a stripped block where it does not have the (witness)signatures/scripts/bloat of segwit/taproot ..  but BLINDLY passes them as valid due to the opcode trick segwit/taproot uses to deem data after opcode should be passed without inspection, even if missing signature witness)

these older nodes are not full nodes as they dont validate all data and dont store all data.. so they cant then act as IBD seeds for other FULL node peers to leach blockchain data from

those older nodes then due to how peerconnect works become a under layer of nodes at the bottom of the tier system of network peers
even gmax and his team called these nodes downstream, bridged, stripped nodes

[d5000]

@franky1: I try to be very synthetic because otherwise this discussion will derail from topic completely. After this post I'll exclusively continue discussing about topics treating centralization dangers in Bitcoin. For the big block and "Lightning good/bad" topics you seem to like so much there are other threads.

1) Lightning providers: Again, the service providers can offer you a credit model if they want to, but this is not like LN was designed. You're confusing the technology with a particular way some providers use it. LN was designed as a prepaid system. I personally don't approve the "credit" business model too much but such models emerging are inevitable, like people holding BTC on Binance (and even "staking" them, lol). I also heavily doubt that 99% of LN users use a "credit" based model.
2) Block size: First, of course, storage is NOT the problem. RAM/Bandwidth/CPU capacity for validation is. My reference is still the Bitfury study from 2015, where the block size which would lead to centralization (where standard commercial hardware would already not be enough) was estimated to be about 4 MB, above all because of RAM usage (if all blocks were 4 MB, RAM usage was estimated to be 16 GB). Yes, 9 years have passed since then, but commercial PC hardware still has mostly 16 GB RAM or less. There are of course high end gaming PCs with 32 GB now but this would barely be enough for a full node when blocks are at 8 MB and not many people have the money to dedicate such a machine to Bitcoin. Thus it leads to .... drumroll ... centralization!
3) Code is beautiful, yes, but please give me a concrete example how you would penalize someone bloating the blockchain with Stampchain NFTs, which look exactly like payments and additionally bloat the UTXO set.
4) Your "evaluate spam by UTXO age" would not work. It would exactly benefit Ordinals/Stampchain-type spam, because people hold these NFTs for a while.
5) I don't say everybody has to migrate to a particular subnetwork, but it will be increasingly beneficial for users to migrate to one of many, or at least to use them for small payments.
6) Full nodes: The idea is that these nodes could provide full validation without full storage. There are for sure challenges but we're talking about future tech here. And I actually would agree with you that while such "ZK nodes" could be attacked in some way full nodes can't, they're not full nodes. This method however seems also promising even if its not using ZK.

[tbterryboy]

I believe Bitcoin's decentralization is a perspective thing, cause of its arguments and counterarguments. It's not static, it's kind of a dimensional discussion affected by various factors. If Gary Gensler thinks Bitcoin isn't decentralized anymore, then that's his opinion. There are lots of people out here and there who believe Bitcoin is very much decentralized and all hoarding through the mining in Big firms doesn't affect its decentralization.

Even if it's becoming centralized slowly, there are certain factors that completely hinder it from becoming so. So, I believe there's no need to worry about Bitcoin's decentralization.

Each has our own perspective on how they view a thing even if it was wrong. Meanwhile, BTC is decentralized but maybe some thinks it isn't now due to the changes that occurs in the space such as regulation and accumulation (only to name a few) as there might be more than these but for me, I still think BTC is decentralized and will remain like this because I believe that it's not like the other coin that has lots of teams and then lots of supply.

You know, some of them may be untrustworthy and hold most of it and even if not them, investors can do it. Some says Satoshi Nakamoto owns a lot of BTC but I still don't think he will sell it only to make money because his vision is different from the majority.

[franky1]

@franky1: I try to be very synthetic because otherwise this discussion will derail from topic completely. After this post I'll exclusively continue discussing about topics treating centralization dangers in Bitcoin.

yes this topic is about BITCOIN so dont use it to promote the shoddy sandbox test subnetwork you want people to migrate over to, to leave bitcoin with less users,, or else i will have to point out where you are going wrong with your recitement of the shoddy network promotion text you are repeating but unaware of the details of effects it has and can cause to the bitcoin network via pretending it too is bitcoin

..
as for bitcoin centralisation/decentralisation
(the network)
yes bitcoin has central points of failure and we should not be utopian dreaming that bitcoin is perfectly decentralised as that lulls people into sleeping and dreaming of silly words recite to them like an advert.. rather then scrutinising the risks

we should be looking for fixes and proposals that diminish the power core have over the protocol we dont need them acting as politicians
instead bring it back to the full consensus system of needing majority network readiness before new features activate so that a majority of the network can be ready to fully validate and archive FULLY and secure the network and data,(its called data/network security, and a good thing) unlike the current soft process that has junk thats not even seen as bad but is not helping the network, and allows dev politics to get involved, meaning we then need to trust, appease, bless and kiss the ring of devs.. (which was not the point of bitcoins invention)

and no ordinals junk does not look like a normal tx.. there are obvious signs its different and code can be made to recognise that.
(hardening up the soft opcodes(now hundreds) that allow data to pass unchecked). require network readiness if someone wants to use an opcode with new format conditions.. (network security) and checking every byte meets a rule(data security)

as for bitcoin centralisation/decentralisation
(the btc coin)
is what gensler is refering to.. which if you count up the UTXO's of the NON dust junk crap.
and the count up the users registered to CEX. from a userbase.. users proclaiming to be bitcoiners are higher % just CEX users

as for the coin totals
the amount of coin moved in the last 3 years. most of the coins within active age, belong to CEX custodians

[blckhawk]

The large amount of bitcoins held at CEX like Binance or etfs like IBIT are not owned by one entity. They are their customers funds. So what you are saying doesn’t apply.

When it comes to decentralization I think the way the hash power is distributed is more important. I remember back in the early days there was over 51% of hashpower in a single pool. We don’t have that problem anymore. China has less hashpower than before and it’s more distributed throughout the planet.

But still, the CEX are holding the money anyway which means that they can runaway with it anytime they want and people won't have any kind of ability to chase them, remember Mt. Gox? I think that the reason that Gensler been saying this is because a lot of us are trading bitcoin, and most of the trades are happening in CEX. To me, decentralization is simple, it's that there's no head that leads the way, everyone's free to do what they need to do like an anarchy society.

[Wind_FURY]

windfury, you are soo boring that you cant even realise how much of a copycat you are
find a new script

Boring and a copy cat? For merely telling the whole truth about you and your mentors Mike Hearn and Roger Ver? To which you are currently denying that you're supporting their ideas during the blockchain debate. Hahaha!

I truly hope you didn't sell your Bitcoin for BCash, franksandbeans. Because that obviously would be the worst financial decision ANYONE could have made.

[CryptoBuds]

The large amount of bitcoins held at CEX like Binance or etfs like IBIT are not owned by one entity. They are their customers funds. So what you are saying doesn’t apply.

When it comes to decentralization I think the way the hash power is distributed is more important. I remember back in the early days there was over 51% of hashpower in a single pool. We don’t have that problem anymore. China has less hashpower than before and it’s more distributed throughout the planet.

But still, the CEX are holding the money anyway which means that they can runaway with it anytime they want and people won't have any kind of ability to chase them, remember Mt. Gox? I think that the reason that Gensler been saying this is because a lot of us are trading bitcoin, and most of the trades are happening in CEX. To me, decentralization is simple, it's that there's no head that leads the way, everyone's free to do what they need to do like an anarchy society.

It's true that CEX and ETFs hold the majority of BTC, but even if those centralized exchanges ran away and took everyone's bitcoin, that wouldn't make bitcoin centralized. They still don't have control over the entire bitcoin network, they can't print more bitcoins like other centralized assets...So bitcoin will never become a centralized asset even if they hold the majority of bitcoin. And what Gensler says doesn't mean what he says is always right, he's a nobody. It seems that he is still angry that he cannot stop the popularity of bitcoin, so he will continue to attack bitcoin until he is exhausted.

[franky1]

windfury, you are soo boring that you cant even realise how much of a copycat you are
find a new script

Boring and a copy cat? For merely telling the whole truth about you and your mentors Mike Hearn and Roger Ver? To which you are currently denying that you're supporting their ideas during the blockchain debate. Hahaha!

I truly hope you didn't sell your Bitcoin for BCash, franksandbeans. Because that obviously would be the worst financial decision ANYONE could have made.

i never even touched any fork of bitcoin nor do i advertise or promote other networks pretending to be bitcoin... yet you have with your mentors shoddy subnetwork he wants to migrate bitcoiners over to and where he wants to stop people buying daily goods on the actual bitcoin network,, which you then recite

you actually do have a mentor.
other people have independent minds to think for themselves and say many things
my opinions are my own. my insults to you are my own unique insults.
my words to you are my own
my thought on development are my own and differ to the ones you quote and different to the ones you also quote others of being

yet your words, insults and lame posts are just words heard by your mentor before you, thus your words are not original, nor are your insults

you should atleast try to be original and unique and independent.. that should be a minimum

pease learn the meaning of independence.. it will not only help you in life, but help you understand what decentralisation is
you just acting a slave to someone elses trusted character and characters(words) is an example of centralisation which you adore

you would rather have code weakened, softened and backdoored to allow one central group control to slide things in without network readiness.. to then require their political decision of needing them to close their exploits, which they refuse..
your acceptance of this policy will not benefit you or others in the long run

dont treat devs as immortal gods you should trust by default and allow them to do as they please without oversight or scrutiny. learn to scrutinise devs that have grabbed the powerhouse of being te "sole reference client"
we should use code to harden the rules to protect the network, not soften the rule to allow a central point of failure do things that caused congestion and bloat... and pretend they didnt know of the repercussions of their error, i was telling them since 2016

if you have more trust in core devs, than the actual code(due to you not reading code, thus blindly trust those that wrote it)
then you have much to learn and have had, but still have much time to learn from your mistakes

[Learn Bitcoin]

In a recent interview with SEC chairman Gary Gensler, there was something that caught my attention. The chairman stated that "Bitcoin is not that decentralized". That's "partially due to the prominence of centralized crypto exchanges". You can read all about it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/cnbc-transcript-sec-chair-gary-gensler-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html

Unfortunately, he is right. A few exchanges hold a big portion of total circulation. I have always said that, if a 10K Bitcoin sale changes the market by 10% or more, what will happen if Binance or some other whales decide to sell 50K Bitcoin in one day? We have seen such things after the ETF approvals. Grayscale was dumping their Bitcoin and this is the reason we didn't see any effect of ETF approval. We started to see the difference, though, only after Grayscale stopped selling their holdings.

Unfortunately, crypto newbies prefers to use centralized exchanges because they can use those platforms whenever they want. They can sign in to their exchange account even if they lose their password. They can recover their password. They use those platforms because of the simplicity.

[d5000]

Unfortunately, he is right. A few exchanges hold a big portion of total circulation. I have always said that, if a 10K Bitcoin sale changes the market by 10% or more, what will happen if Binance or some other whales decide to sell 50K Bitcoin in one day?

Apart from centralization on big exchanges, the high potential volatility emerging from relatively low volume is true currently mainly because of the Bitcoin which is circulating, 95-99% (estimation without any source, but I don't think it's incorrect ) are to be traded for currencies instead of being traded for goods and services. There is no "rooting" of the Bitcoin price in the real economy. People don't know how much it "has to be worth".

If we had more currency usage, then big sale transactions (but also big buy transactions, to some extent) would not matter that much anymore as we'd see a steady circulation "rooted" in the real-world economy. And for these usecases there's Lightning and (hopefully soon) sidechains. Each time a merchant (e.g. Bitrefill) is guaranteeing a price for 15 or 30 minutes Bitcoin is "backed" in some way by the merchant for this timeframe. Several years ago I started a thread about expanding that concept of "backing" Bitcoin by goods/services, but it did not receive much attention. Other ideas would be adding Siacoin-style contracts for trading hosting space for BTC, I guess with LN such a marketplace should be feasible. It doesn't matter which good or service is involved, with the exception of DeFi, i.e. services inside the "Bitcoin/crypto circlejerk".

we should be looking for fixes and proposals that diminish the power core have over the protocol we dont need them acting as politicians
instead bring it back to the full consensus system of needing majority network readiness before new features activate so that a majority of the network can be ready to fully validate and archive FULLY and secure the network

You seem to refer to the Taproot introduction here. But Taproot is not the culprit of the Ordinals spam. See next part. Nor would I agree that Core has that much power like you say. If Taproot was more controversial (e.g. like Segwit) alternative proposals would have been discussed.

and no ordinals junk does not look like a normal tx.. there are obvious signs its different and code can be made to recognise that.

STAMPCHAIN, not Ordinals (Ordinals can sorta be recognized but they can switch to a worse protocol at any time). Please read the proposed protocol. They are creating fake public keys to store data on them. There are no "obvious signs" which public key is true and which is fake. This is actually not a new method, it was used to store data before OP_RETURN was introduced, and it was the reason for OP_RETURN introduction for these protocols not cluttering the UTXO set. Why? Because you can't tell which things are "arbitrary data".

Please understand: as bad as Ordinals and BRC-20 are, Stampchain and the 2013/14 pre-OP_RETURN token protocols are MUCH worse for scaling and would lead to much more centralization risks.

(hardening up the soft opcodes(now hundreds) that allow data to pass unchecked). require network readiness if someone wants to use an opcode with new format conditions.. (network security) and checking every byte meets a rule(data security)

- Hardening opcodes, if I interpret correctly what you mean, would imo make future softforks impossible.
- Require network readiness would make creative usage of contracts depend on "Core approval". You would actually increase Core's power, not reduce it. This would lead to a never ending war about details and so creative usage of Bitcoin Script (I don't include Ordinals in that, but things like LN) would be discouraged. You may like that but I don't.
- "checking every byte meets a rule": Actually you even propose to "worse" scaling if you want "every byte" to be checked for a "rule" or "purpose", because that would increase resource usage of validating full nodes. And: How to check for that purpose? For example, if you want each public key to be check if it really corresponds to an existing address, you would forbid to create new addresses, to create a lock-in and a privacy nightmare.

[Abiky]

Who the heck is Gary Gensler? Is he Satoshi Nakamoto himself? Nope. This is why I find it silly when some people care about some random person's opinions instead of using their own heads properly.

Fact is that BTC itself is decentralised, but some stuff related to it like exchanges etc that require KYC are centralised. They are different.

In other words, the distribution of Bitcoin's supply is centralized. But not the network itself. I sure hope developers find a way to fix this in the long run. As long as Bitcoin preserves decentralization + censorship-resistance, there should be nothing to worry about. We must encourage people to take BTC off centralized exchanges and/or wallet providers. Only then, true equality will be achieved.

It seems Gary Gensler needs a lot to learn about crypto/Blockchain tech. Especially when he used to say PoS coins are "securities". Either he doesn't understand how decentralized protocols work or he is just pretending to harm the crypto industry. Even after the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs, he advised investors to be wary of the risks of buying and holding BTC (reiterating it can be used for criminal activities). Hopefully, the SEC chairman is replaced by someone else who values the true power of Bitcoin/crypto. Maybe the best is yet to come?

[legiteum]

In other words, the distribution of Bitcoin's supply is centralized. But not the network itself. I sure hope developers find a way to fix this in the long run. As long as Bitcoin preserves decentralization + censorship-resistance, there should be nothing to worry about. We must encourage people to take BTC off centralized exchanges and/or wallet providers. Only then, true equality will be achieved.

It seems Gary Gensler needs a lot to learn about crypto/Blockchain tech. Especially when he used to say PoS coins are "securities". Either he doesn't understand how decentralized protocols work or he is just pretending to harm the crypto industry. Even after the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs, he advised investors to be wary of the risks of buying and holding BTC (reiterating it can be used for criminal activities). Hopefully, the SEC chairman is replaced by someone else who values the true power of Bitcoin/crypto. Maybe the best is yet to come?

Gary Gensler taught a class at MIT on blockchain. He knows very well what he is talking about.

He was saying that the way most holders of cryptocurrency use it it's not decentralized--it's a brokerage account in an "oracle database" in his words. And he's absolutely right.

[franky1]

and no ordinals junk does not look like a normal tx.. there are obvious signs its different and code can be made to recognise that.

STAMPCHAIN, not Ordinals (Ordinals can sorta be recognized but they can switch to a worse protocol at any time). Please read the proposed protocol. They are creating fake public keys to store data on them. There are no "obvious signs" which public key is true and which is fake. This is actually not a new method, it was used to store data before OP_RETURN was introduced, and it was the reason for OP_RETURN introduction for these protocols not cluttering the UTXO set. Why? Because you can't tell which things are "arbitrary data".

Please understand: as bad as Ordinals and BRC-20 are, Stampchain and the 2013/14 pre-OP_RETURN token protocols are MUCH worse for scaling and would lead to much more centralization risks.

(hardening up the soft opcodes(now hundreds) that allow data to pass unchecked). require network readiness if someone wants to use an opcode with new format conditions.. (network security) and checking every byte meets a rule(data security)

- Hardening opcodes, if I interpret correctly what you mean, would imo make future softforks impossible.
- Require network readiness would make creative usage of contracts depend on "Core approval". You would actually increase Core's power, not reduce it. This would lead to a never ending war about details and so creative usage of Bitcoin Script (I don't include Ordinals in that, but things like LN) would be discouraged. You may like that but I don't.
- "checking every byte meets a rule": Actually you even propose to "worse" scaling if you want "every byte" to be checked for a "rule" or "purpose", because that would increase resource usage of validating full nodes. And: How to check for that purpose? For example, if you want each public key to be check if it really corresponds to an existing address, you would forbid to create new addresses, to create a lock-in and a privacy nightmare.

d5000 for someone like you thats been around long enough to have had the time to learn enough, you yet again show you dont know enough, by contradicting yourself and by then saying obsurd notions

first of all i have been talking about the funky junk being able to be added if segwit activated since core proposed segwit back in 2016.. creating new soft(open/un-format required)opcodes that were treated as valid without checking data after opcode.. since 2016..
so no its not about taproot.. i never mentioned EVER taproot starting it all, taproot is just the prime example/demo/effect/result of the previous exploit softening has caused since 2017, where years later taproot is the result/example.. not cause

secondly. stampchain. is not complicated. its just multisig of EG 1of2 where it needs one signer key and the other key is junk data
(funny part is i think it was me that gave them the idea in early ordinals days, to use multisig instead of witness metadata/op_returns)

op_return and stampchain does not create 4mb of memes..
op return is limited to 80 bytes and stamps have 20byte thus leaner then the meme junk
and the great thing about code. code can create rules.. as thats the beauty of it
code to limit arbitrary data to keep bitcoin clean for its main intended purpose.. a purpose you seem to have forgot
(and no dont reply that you think bitcoin should be free to become a junk data library/comic book store of images)

i think you really dont understand why bitcoin was such a great solution to digital money concepts of the early years..
i know you want arbitrary junk data as it makes bitcoin annoying and helps you to promote other networks people should use to get away from the annoyances.. but how about you stop promoting other networks and start to think of what is best for bitcoin.. via fixes to the annoyances. rather then wanting the annoyances to continue just to promote user exits as the only solution you could find

hardening the rules again actually means core devs cant just supplant new stuff which then by default require people to rush into using core as sole reference updated code to stay fairly 'fully' again after they change things.. thus keeping them on power
it stops core from being so lax. instead hardening the rules would require core to be scrutinised more pre feature operation, to then have the community then see there is nothing that could go wrong before core do anything.. as it should be

and it then also requires core to hope what they make meets the standards/benefits the community see as a good thing/to see its merits..
meaning core have to actually explain things and show things rather then throw things in and see what sticks

which another brand could then also publish its own proposals and community can check its merits too and there wont be a REKT campaign fear of 'dont use software as its trojan.." of sily fear campaigns. but instead actual fair adoption due to the activation not happening pre majority thus safe to start allowing different nodes onto the network with different feature offering/proposals with no threat level of any brand instantly changing stuff

as for your willingness to not want core to have network readiness as you think it will hinder cores innovativeness/creativity .. well maybe that will kick them up the ass to motivate them to actually make something network benefit worthy, rather than things sponsorship worth

but i do gotta laugh how you dont want nodes checking everything but then try to refer to nodes not checking everything as "full"
pure comedy

[Luke BookBear]

Gary Gensler taught a class at MIT on blockchain. He knows very well what he is talking about.

He was saying that the way most holders of cryptocurrency use it it's not decentralized--it's a brokerage account in an "oracle database" in his words. And he's absolutely right.

I remember watching some of those MIT OpenCourseWare:

Introduction for 15.S12 Blockchain and Money, Fall 2018
Professor Gary Gensler
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s12-blockchain-and-money-fall-2018/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn

[9TONNN]

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I've seen a lot this misconception about Bitcoin decentralization. Actually I've just answered in another topic about this.
Gary Gensler doesn't understand that the decentralization of bitcoin is about the full nodes and the miners involved, not about the number of wallets containing big funds (and frankly, those are still plenty too).
And allow me to be a bit mean: maybe he confused it with Ethereum.

True, but since there is a hard limit of maximum coin supply of Bitcoin subject to halving rewards for miners, Gary Gensler is not totally wrong here. Though I think he is an enemy of defi and permissionless cryptos in general.

[Abiky]

Gary Gensler taught a class at MIT on blockchain. He knows very well what he is talking about.

He was saying that the way most holders of cryptocurrency use it it's not decentralized--it's a brokerage account in an "oracle database" in his words. And he's absolutely right.

Well, Gary is now a government official. So that means he's forced to spread negativism of Bitcoin. Else, he would risk losing his position as head of the SEC. I know most people keep their BTC in the hands of centralized institutions. But there's nothing we can do about it. Especially when BTC is decentralized and open to anyone.

Thank God, network consensus lies on nodes and miners than those with a large economic stake in it. Otherwise, BTC would've been under the control of governments and corporations alike. ETH is in big trouble after doing the switch to PoS. I sure hope Bitcoin stays PoW forever for complete decentralization + censorship-resistance. We're living in uncertain times, so expect the unexpected. Who knows how Bitcoin will fare in the long run?

[legiteum]

Gary Gensler taught a class at MIT on blockchain. He knows very well what he is talking about.

He was saying that the way most holders of cryptocurrency use it it's not decentralized--it's a brokerage account in an "oracle database" in his words. And he's absolutely right.

Well, Gary is now a government official. So that means he's forced to spread negativism of Bitcoin.

Forced? By whom? Why?

From the standpoint of the SEC, Bitcoin is just another investment instrument just like all of the others, and consumers should be protected from fraud, which helps markets function and raises the price of instruments like Bitcoin.

There's no conspiracy. The illuminati is not out to get Bitcoin. Anybody in the US can buy Bitcoin anytime they want. They have Super Bowl commercials about it. People are inventing government intervention out of thin air. Not only is there no government intervention, there's not even a valid reason why there would be intervention and tons of evidence to the contrary e.g. that the ETF was just approved by (checks notes) the same government that is supposedly secretly against Bitcoin.

Look, I get it: it's not as much fun to invest in something if it doesn't have a "catch" associated with it. Lots of people click on those ads that read, "CLICK HERE TO READ WHAT THE POWER COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE". I guess those things work, right?

But the fact is that every bit of earthly evidence points to the fact that in the US and most of the world, Bitcoin is legal and nobody is interested in making it illegal, and in fact access to Bitcoin is actually expanding.

If that diminishes the thrill for people who think otherwise, well, I guess that's what engineers like me do. Sorry.

[Iranus]

]

Well, Gary is now a government official. So that means he's forced to spread negativism of Bitcoin. Else, he would risk losing his position as head of the SEC.

I think this is not right, if the government really hates bitcoin then why did they order him to approve bitcoin ETFs? I think what he said is just his personal opinion and no one forced him to say those things. Since even bitcoin investors have that mindset, I see many people complaining that using centralized platforms or institutions holding too much bitcoin will make bitcoin more centralized. So I think it's just that everyone's views and thoughts about bitcoin are different.