<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1yw9mz9gsrukq2seu9w9wljqw6k62l8fllpz8fzze673znzc3ddysaz8l47

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsz8za3z5gp7tq9gv7zhzh0eq8dtd90n5lls3r53pva0g3f3vgkkjgpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcdel29j

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 19:42:39 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:>Each implementation could have its own governance model
>and design objectives and use techniques like BIP101’s 750/1000
>signalling mechanism to activate changes that may be desirable to
>the community.
I was shushed here 3 months ago for the same suggestion :)
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009294.html

2023-06-07 19:42:37 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:>I just think Mike Hearn has won this battle.
Unless the Core camp isn't concerned with credibility because they see XT as a disruptive attack.
So it's very easy to justify banning a single individual in the name of "restoring peace and order". We've already seen such suggestion.
Peter R was banned on /r/bitcoin, Mike was banned on IRC.
The new governance model seems to be "consensus by exclusion".

2023-06-07 19:40:34 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:>Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered incredibly far off-topic.
How is this off-topic? This a fundamental decision, from which all the other development decisions follow.
And apparently it's far from settled, with one part pulling in the direction of HideCoin and the other in the direction of PopCoin.
The block limit debate is a direct consequence of this fundamental disagreement.
Until this is settled, Bitcoin has no clear direction and developers cannot make effective decisions: it's hard to get anywhere when you don't know where you're going.
Even though this disagreement probably won't be resolved on this list, it's helpful to have this discussion for people to understand what the root problem is.

2023-06-07 19:40:33 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:>Bitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do,
Marijuana is an individual activity. Precisely the problem with Bitcoin you envision, where each one of us could be easily jailed.
Guns are quite different: they have NRA and judging by how successful it is at fending _any_ sort of gun control laws, it can very effectively counter-balance the government.
If Bitcoin had it's own NBitA, it would be in a much better position to defend itself than a bunch of individual users.
>A mining network that anyone can contribute to would enable Bitcoin to stay alive in spite of this
Again. Start building an alt-coin with ASIC-resistant algorithm then, it's much more important than the small blocks in your model.
And it must also have other features to support your fight: integrated darkcoin-style anonymity, only TOR as the protocol, etc.
Trying to use Bitcoin, which is overly-exposed, for this kind of fight is a pretty dumb idea.
You won't have the benefits of a small attack surface and you won't have the benefits of strength - the most vulnerable position.
Not to mention that many people simply don't share your vision of Bitcoin as a marginalized outlawed coin somewhere in the depths of TOR.
Looking at how enthusiastically people in smallblockistan promote the most vulnerable position, I'd say they are all agents of USG.

2023-06-07 19:40:31 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19
📝 Original message:>Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system
>designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that
>system as too important?
Well, if you look at governments from the point of youtube illuminati videos, then, yeah, I guess my position would seem a bit off.
But in that case no threat model or small blocks are gonna save you. As history shows, even if you go as deep as Dread Pirate Roberts, you will eventually be caught and prosecuted.
So start building SilkRoadCoin, which only works via TOR, has ASIC-resistant algorithm and 10 Kb blocks. Then you might have a tiny chance.
Most of us subscribed to a global "electronic cash system" and we intend to continue using Bitcoin for that.

2023-06-07 19:40:31 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19
📝 Original message:>Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>central authority that you can resist it in direct physical confrontation.
>If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
a) too important to close,
b) able to provide adequate response to governments, like EFF or Google do.
Having a substantial attack surface and, at the same time, not having significant power is the worst fighting strategy.
It's the "Peter Todd vs 10 cops" scenario.
>The inability to see another option is the inability to understand what Satoshi created.
So your closing remark is basically, "you're too stupid to understand"?
I'll take it.

2023-06-07 19:40:30 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19
📝 Original message:>While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining
>community it's a reasonable design.
There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining community".
Painting the worst looking picture is either a defect in thinking or intentional FUD.
> Mike Hearn recently posted his threat model, which specifically argues we
> should assume governments are not a threat.
There are two ways to fight governments:
1. either you become too big to close, so political repercussions become unacceptable
2. or you become too tiny to hunt, in which case you are much better off with a specialized alt-coin, designed specifically for that purpose.

2023-06-07 19:40:30 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-19
📝 Original message:>The state is the threat in the Bitcoin threat model. You comments below
>acknowledge it. The assumption of hostile state actors is the only
>rational starting point. That which is regulated (and regulatable)
>in Bitcoin is the attack surface.
I think, you just proved my point. If your goal is to shrink the attack surface as much as possible,
you are better off being a marginalized alt-coin.
>This threat represents the difference between Bitcoin and Fedcoin.
_This_ is the false dichotomy. There's a range of coins between DarkCoin and FedCoin.
>This is extremely naive. At a minimum, getting popular/successful (and regulated) is the formula for regulatory capture.
Let me give you an example.
Suppose you are a regular guy, say Peter Todd, and you are faced with 10 policemen in anti-riot gear.
You can fight them in two ways:
1. become stronger, so you could provide an adequate response, either by turning into Hulk or by getting another 30-50 Peter Todds.
2. lose some fat, learn a few parkour tricks and move around mostly by night behind dumpsters.
The worst you can fare is just being Peter Todd with a backpack and an expensive camera on his neck, wandering around the city in daylight.
Your vision of Bitcoin is the most vulnerable to government attacks.

2023-06-07 19:36:05 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17
📝 Original message:>We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with anger and disrespect.
Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is doing)?
>From my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage community's free choice instead.
>Nobody should be forced to do anything.
Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?
Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.
>The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to do what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical abilities.
The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an alternative.
And the fear they show is most telling.

2023-06-07 19:36:05 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17
📝 Original message:>Announcing Not-BitcoinXT
>https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt
> "This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize."
> "...real technical consensus..."
You mean the bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin wizards, who decided they have the right to tell everybody what to do, and who never got to grow up and are now angry at the world for not listening to them anymore? That "technical consensus"?
"Bitcoin is decentralized, but you are only allowed to do what we tell you to do. It's our pet project, we wrote code for it!"
That's what it all boils down to, all these dirty games of calling XT an alt-coin and censoring its posts, pretending to be Satoshi, sabotaging XT switch, etc.: "How dare they not listen to Us The Smartest anymore?!!!"
Pathetic. The history will roll over you in a blink. The harder you try, the quicker it will go.

2023-06-07 17:47:43 CEST

- reply

2023-06-07 17:47:43 CEST

- reply

2023-06-07 17:40:40 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27
📝 Original message:On 6/27/2015 at 2:04 PM, "Jorge Timón" <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>But that option is not unknown...
It is, until it actually happens. Before that, anything is a speculation. That's why risk is attached to both "doing nothing" and "raising the limit".
For example, there's another risk that a lot of people will be disappointed in a system that can't scale (or adapt to any significant changes, for that matter).
Yes, there is the "exit" option, but that path would probably be a lot messier and unwarranted.
Various people perceive these risks differently and there is no clear mechanism currently to somehow gauge what the majority wants. So it's tempting to just give up and say: let's do nothing.
In this situation, doing a "software fork" seems like the only way to actually see how many people/interests are in favor of bigger blocks.
(Whether the majority has a moral right to dictate the minority is a tough philosophical question, which should probably be left out of this discussion :)

2023-06-07 17:40:39 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27
📝 Original message:On 6/27/2015 at 1:04 PM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then you won't risk the other 'passengers' who don't consent to it.
But you can look at it the other way: what about risking the 'passengers' when the plane suddenly doesn't fly anymore?
Increasing block limit increases the risk of centralization, but it also keeps the current status quo of blocks not being filled, rather then risking an unknown option of hitting the limit hard.
>... and pretending is only going to cause damage by creating false expectations, or eventually even double-spending possibility because of conflicting forks.
So you personally see the risks of a hard-fork outweigh the risks of not increasing the block size.
It's a valid opinion, but you probably don't want to decide the fate of Bitcoin single-handedly by denying any change, which is not a technical emergency.
That's why there should be a mechanism where the whole community can vote. Lacking that, that's what Gavin and Mike are doing: creating their own mechanism for consensus changes.

2023-06-07 17:40:38 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27
📝 Original message:On 6/27/2015 at 10:43 AM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> It has been disappointing and scary to see political pressure tactics being used to change a distributed consensus system.
That's why some people are advocating formalizing the process. Political pressure will happen anyway, whether somebody likes it or not. It's better to deal with it in the open.
> They cannot be changed willy-nilly according to needs of some groups, much less than lower gravity can be legislated to help the airline industry.
Except the block size is not gravity. It's more like an arbitrary decision to limit planes' wingspan to the most typical hangar door of 1940.
And now we have a "controversy" that we can't have modern planes out of the fear they won't fit into some of the old hangars.
And to continue with this nice example, some people are even arguing that "the demand for flight is, essentially, limitless, so why bother making larger jets at all?"