{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e It's surprising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal\n\u003e most other core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem.\n\u003e\n\nI agree that it is a waste of time. Many agree. The Bitcoin ecosystem\ndoesn't really need lobbying - my experience from talking to businesses and\nwallet developers months ago is they virtually all see raising capacity as\na no brainer ... and some of them see this \"debate\" as despair-inducing\ninsanity.\n\nWhat's happened here is that a small number of people have come to believe\nthey have veto power over changes to Bitcoin, and they have also become\n*wildly* out of step with what the wider community wants. That cannot last.\nSo, short of some sudden change of heart that lets us kick the can down the\nroad a bit longer, a fork is inevitable.\n\nJust be glad it's Gavin driving this and not me ... or a faceless coalition\nof startups.\n\n\n\u003e Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus that's\n\u003e what gives Bitcoin its value.\n\u003e\n\nNo. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.\n\nIt's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation is a\nmeans to an end. I first used Bitcoin in April 2009 and it was perfectly\ndecentralised back then: every wallet was a full node and every computer\nwas capable of mining.\n\nSo if you believe what you just wrote, I guess Bitcoin's value has gone\ndown every day since.\n\nOn the other hand, if you believe the markets, Bitcoin's value has gone up.\n\nApparently the question of what gives Bitcoin its value is a bit more\ncomplicated than that.\n\n\n\n\n\u003e : to incentive layer 2 and offchain solutions to scale Bitcoin : there are\n\u003e promising designs/solutions out there (LN, ChainDB, OtherCoin protocole,\n\u003e ...), but most don't get much attention, because there is right now no need\n\u003e for them. And, I am sure new solutions will be invented.\n\u003e\n\nI have seen this notion a few times. I would like to dispose of it right\nnow.\n\nI am one of the wallet developers you would be trying to \"incentivise\" by\nletting Bitcoin break, and I say: get real. Developers are not some\nbottomless fountain of work that will spit out whatever you like for free\nif you twist their arms badly enough.\n\nThe problems that incentivised the creation of Bitcoin existed for decades\nbefore Bitcoin was actually invented. Incentives are not enough. Someone\nhas to actually do the work, too. All proposals on the table would:\n\n   - Involve enormous amounts of effort from many different people\n   - Be technically risky (read: we don't know if they would even work)\n   - Not be Bitcoin\n\nThe last point is important: people who got interested in Bitcoin and\ndecided to devote their time to it might not feel the same way about some\nnetwork of payment hubs or whatever today's fashion is. Faced with their\nwork being broken by armchair developers on some mailing list, they might\njust say screw it and walk away completely.\n\nAfter all, as the arguments for these systems are not particularly logical,\nthey might slave over hot keyboards for a year to support the Lightning\nNetwork or whatever and then discover that it's no longer the fashionable\nthing ... and that suddenly an even more convoluted design is being\n\"incentivised\".\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150601/cfb40524/attachment.html\u003e"}