Saylor finally comments about development on the new WBD podcast and it isn't great. Props to Peter for the constant pushback because Saylor fumbled hard.
I really got sick of him conflating open source development with government, and I really really got sick of the hyperbole of adding numbers to our numerical system and finally I really really really got sick of him constantly insinuating bitcoin developers don't know what they're doing.
This guy is bad news for bitcoin development.
Was a conflicting listen for me.
The approach of bitcoin winning through the "sly roundabout way" of integrating it with every business and organization is quite interesting. Lot of validity in stuff like conservativism towards potentially messing with incentives, knock on effects, not trying to do too much on the base layer, etc.
At the same time, his thoughts on dev funding are very misguided. nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f isnt throwing money around to softfork proposals. Neither is Brink, AFAIK. There's a lot of other work that needs funding and he's not helping in the way he think he might be by discouraging dev funding.
He said that dev funding should proceeding with 'surgical precision', based on the values held by individual developers.
Is that not the most coherent, considered position, with respect to how funding should proceed?
Surely OpenSats would make the case that that's the way in which they allocate capital... with 'surgical precision', vs indiscriminate helicopter money....
Saylor is good news for my bags
Yeah humans have a great track record of anticipating consequences of their design decisions.
Luckily, Saylor has fuck all to say about it.
People who make one successful innovation should focus on improving the core value proposition that they were able to commercialize. Only expand to other areas when necessary to improve the core value proposition.
WTF does that have anything to do with the OP.
Disagree. The analogy to government was imperfect but it made sense in context. The thing about adding numbers was actually making a pretty good point. And some devs (like ones pushing OP CAT) actually are hoping to make risky changes.
No.
It makes ZERO sense to compare FOSS development with government, they're nothing alike.
It makes ZERO sense to compare adding numbers with maintaining/upgrading a network protocol.
The only thing that makes sense is that a non developer would come up with such nonsensical comparisons.
Saylor needs to be called out for this dangerous ignorance. FOSS development needs support and bitcoin is FAR from being finished.
I don't know why you are surprised, Saylor only uses Bitcoin for his own benefit, with Microstrategy he already made it clear that he simply took advantage of the gap of an ETF in the market, that's the only reason why he bought Bitcoin, not because he believes in its principles.
Saylor is an agent Smith.
nostr:note1r800vga42ecn78pg98lvkd2jw7qe0ydrsw48thtryt2rgjg36nqstr4nyw
Sounds like he’d be willing to sue devs if he doesn’t like a change and deems it could risk the value of his stack. Very cypherpunk of him
Bitcoin can be the best money humanity has ever known. I believe this is fundamentally because of its superior decentralization and security. I am interested in changes that enhance those properties, and firmly opposed to any that threaten them.
I think his commentary on unintended consequences, and his that can apply to the base layer is spot on. Too much at risk now, and years of successfully operating, to just make changes without a lot of thought. Changing the other layers makes more sense on the whole.
I thought his views were well reasoned and agree with his stance overall. Pete also articulated some good responses to counterpoint them. I want little to no base layer changes at this point unless there is a systemic issue or extremely strong case is made.
Agree on the counterpoints, his counterpoints literally argue that we need to continue to upgrade bitcoin. If software is not updated it dies.
Explain why does Bitcoin die if it's not updated? If it's working now, why would it not continue to work. I'm fine with looking for bugs etc but it's new features that worries me.
Bitcoin is software, if software is not updated it becomes less secure over time because there's always people trying to find vulnerabilities. Bitcoin has had several major network halting bugs fixed in its time that if left unchecked would have made bitcoin die many years ago.
As far as upgrades go if bitcoin is not upgraded then over time it will be replaced by something the market finds more valuable. This can take decades but the possibility is left wide open if it is not continuously upgraded.
This is basic software development 101.
Agree fully with the first point. Disagree fully with the second point at least for the next 10 years.
Unix timestamp issue, multiple unaddressed DOS vectors, suboptimal package relay, etc. could go on but there are many bugs that need to be addressed. Without it Bitcoin will literally cease to operate eventually. This is fact, not hyperbole.
These are separate to CTV tho correct? CTV is feature adding not bug fixing.
Correct, CTV is a net new op code soft fork.
Yeah so that's a no from me.
It’s fine if you don’t like one particular fork option, but keep in mind without certain forks Bitcoin will 100% die. The Unix timestamp is the classic example. So being 100% anti fork is factually 100% wanting Bitcoin to die.
Nobody is anti all forks. I'll consider each and judge on it's merits. Imo CTV is reckless and unnecessary and I question the judgment of anyone pushing it. Taproot enabled more shitcoinery and devs have not recovered sufficient social captial to propose such sweeping changes so soon.
Depends on your definition of shitcoin. If you are referring to things actually in production such as tokens, ordinals, and inscriptions that is inaccurate. These generally use Segwit not Taproot, and even if we somehow could remove Segwit and Taproot you can still do inscriptions. If you are referring to potential future state theorized taproot specific functionality such as Optimistic Rollups on BitVM, those are still only theorized possibilities and may never happen. So the proverbial jury is still out. And even if they do technically work they will not be very efficient or “ideal” so even if technically viable they may never gain users. Hard to say without a lot more time and data.
I sat at the open source stage in Madeira the whole day and listened to hours of this type of conversation. It's not for me honestly. You hash it out with your peers and present your ideas for us normal folk to comment on in the social concensus arena. I'm happy with send receive and hold on base layer + maintenance and minor alterations for L2s. I won't be agreeing to more than that for a number of years if ever.
That’s okay. Genuine question not a rude gotcha attempt: would you ever consider a scalability fork? Let’s say Bitcoin swallows everything in 20 years and demand is so off the charts a base chain transaction is $1000 each or maybe even $10,000 or more all the time in today’s dollars, would you consider then or still a no? If not why?
Absolutely. In that scenario I'd almost certainly agree to a change. We might all be on L2s at that point and the fees are necessary to secure the network so we'll see but I'm open to alterations just extremely conservative. I'll give you a quick example, my WordPress site ground to a halt because there were to many plugins and one as stuck in an event loop draining all the server resources. Now I just use it as a website and moved all my cms elsewhere, it performs much better. It's small scale put the principle holds.
Interesting perspective. I'm generally in the camp of "push Bitcoin to the limits of its current form, then discuss upgrades."
Absolutely
I think push to the limits and then discuss change is a rational anti-scalability fork for now position for sure. I just fear when people say no changes forever. That’ll kill Bitcoin. 🫡
It's possible to be anti softfork upgrade in the short/medium term and pro security/bug fork
It certainly is possible but it’s also not that simple. Any fork cannot be a 100% security or say a 100% scaling fork. They aren’t so black and white.
Slay your beardos
His position, that Bitcoin Layer 1 development should proceed extremely cautiously, somewhat akin to aerospace engineering, is extremely well founded.
Those who wish to move fast and break things should focus their efforts elsewhere. Maligning those who favour a conservative approach is weak behaviour.
That is factually not his mindset. He said explicitly “no protocol changes”. That isn’t cautious thats refusal to do anything at all, and Bitcoin has multiple bugs we need to address.
Please cite your source on him explicity saying "no protocol changes"
I’m eyeballing the timeline not rewatching so excuse a rough estimate: at like 120 he says”just don’t F with the protocol, and around 127 he says “don’t inflate the network” and goes on to define inflation as adding scalability and features. So no scalability and no features or any kind should be added. Saying we cannot make any attempt to scale is ridiculous. This means Bitcoin is only for rich people and 99% of the world it’s just pick your custodian.
If you're going to claim he said no protocol changes, you're going to need to provide a citation.
My position is, he never uttered those words. He is in favour of a conservative approach to development, not "no development".
I suggest people stop misrepresenting him.
Plain as day. Saylor is in favour of "thoughtful, principled development".
He goes on to define that development as only non protocol changes like making nodes run better. At 127 he specifically says no feature changes and no scalability improvements. Let’s set aside a somewhat semantics argument, no scalability changes just means only the 1% can hold Bitcoin sovereignly and for 99% of the planet you can just pick a custodian. That’s just money for rich people all over again.
Literally no core dev ever wanted to "move fast and break things", this is the danger of Saylor.
He has the ability to bamboozle 95% of non-devs just like he did to you with this manipulate tactics.
FOSS development is extremely important to support and Bitcoin is FAR from finished.
Think he’s stuck in a Big Blocker mindset where he believes the core devs control everything and misses you have to convince the vast majority of the network to run new software to accept a fork.
Wasn't going to listen but your post made me skim through it using a transcript. It's not half as bad as you make it out to be. I'm very much on my guard with Saylor, but he makes a good point of systems in general failing in part due to intellectuals aiming to change things for the better and causing hell.
Fuck the ETFs though.
No.
Comparing free open source development with a government and framing it as a bad thing is absolutely bad and needs to be called out.
He's already privately lobbied people to not fund further bitcoin development.
This interview is just the tip of the iceberg, we'll likely have to fight Saylor like we had to fight Ver if Saylor cannot be properly educated.
the conflations between horse shit analogies was an absolute trainwreck. :cringeChain:
I don’t see a problem. If people want to freak over things they can’t control, be concerned about the people we don’t know, that haven’t gone public with their bag or intentions.
