lets see..
a centralized group of people intentionally making a protocol change to lock up user funds ,
is NOT "undermining censorship resistance"
cool cool.
as long as I get richer 🤷
Discussion
No, a decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests (because that is the only practical way this can play out in the real world, given how everything irt Bitcoin and markets etc works), forking away particular sitting duck btc, does indeed NOT undermine the censorship resistance of Bitcoin that was based on the divergence of interests and the inability to effectively coordinate.
Indeed cool, because we all get relatively richer.
You have to actually reason this stuff through in terms of how this would play out: What are the requirements for such a ''decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests' to occur? A big component is that it requires absolutely passive btc just sitting there, doing nothing, not resisting anything, otherwise this 'decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests' can't effectively target anything.
i.e. the fact that no resistance against censorship took place indeed means that censorship resistance was not undermined, its not that complicated actually.
lol
ok.
I fail to see how anyone gets richer, those coins that won’t move will be the same coins that were dormant anyway — so how does that affect price? It doesn’t… price is already determined in the margins. The only way it could possibly affect price is *if* it triggers massive buying. Secondly it could hurt price if there is contention and miners and nodes continue to direct their resources to the old chain creating a competing chain, this could in theory cause trading between QBTC and BTC which could have unforeseen consequences.
Generally fair point, although i'd say it is reasonable to assume that the information of a reduced total opposed to the uncertainty of dormancy would, ultimately, effect behavior/price.
As for any particular proposal, i did not follow any debate, im simply reasoning against the statement made by Odell, and in general my point would be that any contention would be short lived compared to the long term effect of a structural supply reduction (i can wait a few years).
Yea there just seems to be a general misconception in bitcoin that hard cap means up forever. It does not, it only means up forever if demand increases forever. If it reduced supply of active supply then yes if demand stayed neutral with less “active” supply that would change the supply demand dynamics and effect price. The risk is if people somehow missed the news and didn’t upgrade and lost their coins. But again miners will direct their hash to the more profitable chain. So who knows what would happen.
Look, i get the discomfort, but how i read Odel's statement is 'satoshi gave everyone a suit of armor, but for the sake of the people that decided to not wear/use it, lets all be nice and just agree to be nice and not hit eachother'.
Regardless of the context (i understand this particular context is quantum stuff, but i just reason from 'lets fuck up satoshis million because we can' for example) i think that is a very 'un-bitcoiner' position to take.
lmfao nice has nothing to do with it
if you want to fork to steal satoshis bitcoin, good luck
will not comply
2Chainz confirmed
Institutionalize QBTC
And Ol Dirty Bitcoins ODB
What non-altruistic reason do you have to not comply? Are you satoshi?
The only reason i can come up with is the assessment many other people are oblivious to what their interests are, and as a result it would cause confusion, or atleast fertile grounds to sow confusion, which would be undesirable; which is fair, given you yourself thusfar are an excellent demonstration of the lack of such insight.
Then again, if such confusion is significant enough the (soft)fork itself would probably not be a succes to begin with.
because investing a small group of people to make changes to the protocol based on an indeterminate threat undermines it's censorship resistance long-term.
despite any short-term gain, over time *the fact such changes could be made* makes Bitcoin MORE vulnerable to corruption and therefore LESS valuable.
check your time preference.
How does it undermine Bitcoin's censorship resistance? How is it that YOU, and by extension every other actor, lost their ability to resist censorship?
because it sets precedent that the protocol may be modified to prevent (previously) legitimate spends.
obviously that undermines censorship resistance.
youre just saying that you don't care because it won't effect you *this time* and you dgaf about other people's UTXOs or protocol ossification.
as long as NGU let them change the protocol, right?
Precedence is just some specter in your mind, ignoring what was already potentially possible to begin with.
I think ossification is a descriptive, just a thing that happens over time with size and decentralization.
Im saying it wont effect me next time either, because i have censorship resistance....and so do you.
"precedent" is what we call the social phenomenon where, once you do something, it becomes normalized.
censorship resistance doesn't exist because you say "censorship resistance."
it exists when a 3rd party can't prevent you from sending a transaction.
so stop with the ridiculous mental gymnastics.
you're literally advocating for a 3rd party to prevent certain p2p transactions.
On 'normalization':
The whole premise behind Bitcoin is that the coordination of (global) divergent interests is hard/unstable (hence nakamoto concensus was introduced). You suggest some outlier phenomena (a rare moment when those divergent interest converge on some idea/notion/proposal) will get "normalized"; i'd say that is a silly idea, and that such convergence does not occur through normalization ('ossification' is exactly what prevents normalization to begin with), but simply due to particular conditions being right/ripe.
Censorship resistance in Bitcoin exists because of divergence of interest, i.e. odds are you will always find a miner to bribe to include you into a block. Thats it, you can BRIBE some other dude, to cooperate with you instead of some potential conspiracy against you. Thats where your resistance-ability lies. Mining itself is a (permissionless) game amongst "gods", i.e. you can't expect a 'user' to cough up hashpower out of the blue to generate a block in a permissionless manner such that he can get his tx in the chain within a reliable/reasonable amount of time...inb4 you tried to argue that routem...
So that state of Bitcoin is one where 3rd parties have a hard time ganging up on you; you can bride a 3rd party to fold in irt any potential conspiracy against you; if you do fuck all then at some point some conspiracy might succeed: not because you had the inability to do anything, but because you did not do anything.
Resistance is an action, again its not censorship-impossibility, some magical attribute.
If a thing is in my interest...and yours...and the next guy...why not conspire? Because it is not nice? You joined Bitcoin in the hopes people are nice???
obviously we disagree regarding normalization. if you look at the history of Bitcoin or have any experience in open source software development, that the normalization of particular behaviors occurs is obvious.
its not like it's unique to Bitcoin either. this is a known issue with decentralized projects and humans in general.
matt and I are saying (if I can put words in his mouth) thats why we dont support this particular "conspiracy." its just naive to believe it's not a concern.
whether normalization occurs or not however, the fact that changing the protocol to prevent certain p2p txs erodes Bitcoins censorship resistance is obvious.
Well i think this conversation is spend, but i cant resist pointing out the irony of your mistake of calling the transactions p2p; bitcoin (onchain) txs are not p2p, miners are not your peer. I can't shake the feeling that error somehow is indicative of your broader perspective on the matter; a blindspot in the relation to the 3rd party involved lets say.
In any event, we can't even seem to get the sensible softforks going, so its not as if the topic a whole is all too relevant.
agree this conversation is over.