James OB spitting the hard truths on twitter. I agree with everything he says here: https://x.com/jamesob/status/1857049961235403101

No idea how this will turn out. For most questions it's not that hard to get an idea of what the future will bring based on incentive analysis and historical precedent. I don't know of a good historical analog for the successful transition from benevolent dictator to anarcho-consensus. If anyone out there does know of one it could be *very* fruitful to share with the right people. Something to keep in the back of your mind. Where my bitcoin anthropologists at?

My gut tells me that we will continue to thrash on the soft fork question with no meaningful progress until the scaling pains or some other problem grows to crisis level. This is a very clear historical precedent. After the crisis is widely acknowledged we'll select a new hierarchy of leaders to push through an engineering fix.

This will probably bring about another schism in the bitcoin community. I suspect we'll need to fork off Saylor and Blackrock. Honestly, good riddance. These fat cats were never cypherpunks and they never will be. But with them goes the promise of unlimited price appreciation with no effort. You'll still need to work a day job to grow your savings.

I think the pleb ossifiers are directionally correct, but I think their specific concerns are misplaced. They are right about proceeding cautiously. We're only gonna get one chance to displace fiat. We can't afford to fuck this up. But I think they take this anxiety towards change and put it all on the risks they can see and understand and take direct action on: soft fork activation attempts from within the bitcoin community. It's a whole lot easier to stall something than to push it through and acting in any capacity makes you feel accomplished, even if you are pulling in the wrong direction.

In my opinion, premature ossification is a much bigger problem. The risk is that bitcoin achieves far less than it's full potential. We get there through inaction. There is a massive pot in the center of this poker table. We need to ante up to stay in the game. We need to take measured, intelligent risks to win. But it's not a poker game, we're actually betting on the course of human civilization.

Personally, I think attempting any soft fork under the current level of mining pool centralization is an unacceptable risk. One reason I decided to work on this problem.

Another reason is that mining software has been long neglected. Historically, the smartest and most ideologically motivated devs are attracted to other layers of the stack. I know because I feel this pull as well. This is why we've got free, private, decentralized, self-hostable, cypherpunk software for nodes and wallets, but not for mining.

Things are turning around thanks to the hard work of a small group of engineers. Sv2 is complete and SRI is nearly production ready. I am extremely grateful to be in a position to stand on the shoulders of these giants. But I don't see a compelling story for small miners to run this software and build their own block templates. It's not enough to get hobbyists on board; in order to win this fight we need to make decentralized mining more profitable than centralized alternatives.

Braidpool is another very promising project. I hope they succeed. A decentralized monolithic mining pool would be metal as fuck but I fear that even with Braidpool we're still stuck in the local maximum of monolithic mining pools.

I smell opportunity. I see a path to fix big problems in bitcoin by focusing on the neglected layers of the stack. I think we can decentralize mining with new ideas and architectures that bring unstoppable cypherpunk energy to the space. If successful, the fruits of this labor will unleash a tsunami of innovation and human productivity. I'm ready to go surfing. 🏄

My secret hope is that solving a big existential risk that everyone can see and understand might be the psychological victory we need to head off a greater conflict in the future. If we get most of the pleb ossifiers on board, we won't need to fork off the fat cats. With overwhelming consensus they will see the shift in the weather and get with the program to protect their vast wealth. Sun Tzu said to always leave a path for your opponent to retreat. I think this wisdom is directly applicable here.

We can show the ossifiers that they were right to be cautious, vanquish an existential threat to bitcoin, and, if we act skillfully and with emotional intelligence, we can redirect their attention to the next looming crisis: scaling trustless self custody to every human being.

I don't know how to do this. It's a social influence game, which is an area I have always intentionally avoided. This is a nascent idea. I'm still turning it over in my head. Maybe some of y'all have a good perspective to share or can take this idea and run with it. Let me know what you think.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

you talk about bitcoin forks but what would be the upgrade that would enable all the good things? I don't think any proposed or imaginable L2 is actually scalable, and apparently you don't either given that you are an ecash supporter

in any case obviously forks are important and we should have them asap

> I don't think any proposed or imaginable L2 is actually scalable

imagine harder

> you don't either given that you are an ecash supporter

false dichotomy, ecash is complementary to on-chain bitcoin not rival

> forks are important and we should have them asap

Yes and no, they are very important but we should take our time and get it right because there are no take-backs. This doesn't mean bikeshedding every proposal to death. It means picking a problem to solve, proposing solutions, choosing the proposal that makes the best tradeoffs, and committing to its activation.

what solution do you have in mind? if it was possible to do a scalable L2 wouldn't have been done on ethereum already?

ethereum is already unscalable, you can't build a superhighway on a foundation of sand

I don't have a readymade solution in mind. We don't have good tools at the lowest layer. Satoshi took a hatchet to bitcoin script right before he scooted out the door forever. GSR looks very compelling but it's still in the idea phase at this point. This is a great read though: https://x.com/n1ckler/status/1854552545084977320

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. As a pleb, I have only the most abstract understanding of what you're talking about here but it worries me! I know that Odell had a discussion about it recently on nostr:npub10atn74wcwh8gahzj3m0cy22fl54tn7wxtkg55spz2e3mpf5hhcrs4602w3 and I'll catch up with that soon.

Yeah man. Spend time and effort on the things that are important. This is very important to me.

Keep learning. Never stop. 🤙

The issue is probably Core. It's centralizing. There should be many popular node implementations.

That isn't a core problem. The market will determine it.

I don't disagree with you. I'm merely informing others that alternative implementations would be useful. The market is not efficient in complex fields.

More node implementations would be nice but it does nothing to scale on-chain usage.

I think a wider range of implementations would open up avenues for getting changes added to consensus layer. If others become the majority over core, and those ones adopt feature flagging, consensus might change to support. It removes Core review as the ultimate gatekeeper to changes.

> those ones adopt feature flagging, consensus might change to support

I think you put the cart before the horse. You can't adopt features requiring consensus changes before you get everyone to adopt the consensus change. It doesn't matter how many node implementations there are.

That's not accurate. Even today many people run nodes supporting different features. Even before the softforks, nodes upgraded to support the features if the softfork might be activated. The problem right now is that Core reviewers are the gatekeepers for consensus implementation.

For a somewhat related example, take Bitcoin Knots. It is essentially a filter that still respects the most proof-of-work chain whatever that might be. The point of it is that if a majority of people adopted it, miners would be forced to update their consensus rules for fear of not having their blocks propagated.

Let's say a worthy alternative implementation gained majority popularity. Would consensus proposal review and reference implementation remain on Core?

How many consensus changes have you coded up? Are you waiting for bitcoin core reviewers to approve them?

Are you admitting that Core review is the crux, or are you suggesting my opinion is invalid if I haven't proposed a change to Core?

I heard there was intent to separate consensus rules from Core node implementation, maybe via a library? This would at least be a step in the right direction.

Just clarifying your level of knowledge of the process. You speak like you have experience. I assume based on your answer that you don't have any first hand knowledge.

I have not proposed a consensus change but I pay close attention to this stuff. Core review is not the blocker. No consensus change has achieved enough momentum to warrant core maintainer code review.

Maybe you assumed my use of the word "gatekeeper" meant that I was suggesting Core has been actively blocking proposals. As James OB pointed out, there is no direction. Or maybe I've misread or forgotten the point of his article.

Yeah that's how I read it. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Regarding soft forks, the biggest blocker is that the community is fractured. No consensus change will get through until we achieve unity or near unity of opinion on both the necessity and end-goal of a soft fork. I am coming to the opinion that the only way to get there is from a crisis. This is just how anarchy works.

It is unclear to me if we can ever go back to the era of experts pushing through non-essential upgrades. That door may have closed forever. Only time will tell.

So maybe the best thing we can do is keep iterating on proposals that address a specific problem and have them ready to go (or as close as we can manage) in the event that a crisis develops.

I see two developing crises:

- quantum computing

- scaling on-chain throughput

These are not independent concerns. Currently, the best quantum signatures are 100x larger than elliptic curve signatures. So "solving" this crisis will make our scaling problems exponentially worse.

There are a few early stage proposals for quantum resistant signature algorithms but the vast majority of the work remains to be done.

As for scaling, the existing covenant proposals haven't been shown to increase on-chain throughput, which is necessary for self-custody. The layered approach taken by lightning, ecash, ark, et al scales off-chain transaction throughput but at the end of the day users need to withdraw their sats on-chain to cold storage. This will be the bottleneck.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying scaling transaction throughput is not important. If we don't improve bitcoin's usability then we won't have scaling problems because it will stay niche forever.

But when it comes to consensus changes, self-custody is the thing we need to scale. This is how people protect themselves from debasement. If we don't address this problem then what are we even doing here? This was a great point raised by James OB and it has changed my thinking.

I will be applying this new filter when I consider soft fork proposals in the future: does it allow significantly more people to own an on-chain UTXO?

I've made some assumptions in this line of reasoning. It's always good to question your assumptions. There are the open questions in my mind:

Do existing covenants proposals increase on-chain throughput? I wasn't very rigorous in claiming that they don't. It is a loosely held belief.

Can bitcoiners protect themselves from debasement without owning a UTXO? Is a federated model like Liquid or Fedimint good enough? Is a trustless bridge to another chain possible? If it is possible, does it do anything to reduce fees?

For Japanese reader

大事な議論だと思うのでChat GPTで訳と背景説明してもらいました。「セイラーやブラックロックを切り離す必要がある」とか刺激的です。

コメント全文の日本語訳 by Chat GPT

James OBがTwitterで厳しい真実を吐き出している。ここで述べていることすべてに賛成だ:

https://x.com/jamesob/status/1857049961235403101

この状況がどうなるか全く分からない。ほとんどの問題では、インセンティブ分析や歴史的な前例に基づいて将来がどうなるかを予測するのはそれほど難しくない。しかし、「善意の独裁者」から「アナーココンセンサス」への成功した移行に類似する歴史的な前例を私は知らない。もし誰かがそれを知っているなら、適切な人たちと共有することが非常に有益だろう。心に留めておくべきことだ。ビットコインの人類学者はどこにいる?

私の直感では、スケーリング問題やその他の問題が危機的なレベルに達するまで、ソフトフォークの問題については意味のある進展がないまま揺れ動き続けるだろう。これは非常に明確な歴史的な前例だ。危機が広く認識されると、新たなリーダーの階層が選ばれ、技術的な解決策を推進するだろう。

これにより、ビットコインコミュニティにまた別の分裂が生じるだろう。セイラーやブラックロックを切り離す必要があると私は思う。正直に言って、それでいい。これらの「ファットキャット」(大物)はそもそもサイファーパンクではなかったし、これからもそうなることはない。しかし彼らとともに、労力をかけずに無限の価格上昇を期待する約束も失われるだろう。結局、貯蓄を増やすには日々の仕事を続ける必要がある。

プレブ(一般人)の「凍結派」(ossifiers)は方向性としては正しいが、具体的な懸念は的外れだと思う。慎重に進めるべきだという点は正しい。法定通貨を置き換えるチャンスは一度きりだ。我々はこれを失敗する余裕はない。しかし彼らはこの「変化への不安」をすべて、自分たちが理解しやすいリスク、つまりビットコインコミュニティ内部からのソフトフォークの試みのリスクに押し付けていると思う。何かを押し進めるよりも停滞させる方がずっと簡単であり、何らかの形で行動することは、それが間違った方向であっても達成感を得られる。

私の意見では、早すぎる凍結ははるかに大きな問題だ。ビットコインがその本来の可能性を大きく下回るリスクがある。行動しないことでそうなるのだ。このポーカーテーブルの中央には巨大なポットがある。我々はゲームに留まるために賭け金を出す必要がある。勝つためには、慎重かつ知的なリスクを取る必要がある。しかしこれはポーカーゲームではない。我々は人類文明の方向性に賭けているのだ。

個人的には、現在の採掘プールの中央集権化レベルの下でソフトフォークを試みることは、受け入れられないリスクだと思う。この問題に取り組むことを決めた理由の一つだ。

もう一つの理由は、採掘ソフトウェアが長い間放置されてきたことだ。歴史的に見て、最も賢明でイデオロギー的に動機づけられた開発者は、スタックの他のレイヤーに引き付けられる。私自身もその引力を感じているため、これが事実だと知っている。これが理由で、ノードやウォレットでは無料でプライベート、分散型、自己ホスト型、サイファーパンクなソフトウェアが存在するが、採掘に関してはそうではない。

状況は変わりつつある。少数のエンジニアたちの努力のおかげだ。Sv2は完成しており、SRIはほぼ製品化の準備が整っている。この巨人たちの肩に立てることに、私は非常に感謝している。しかし、スモールマイナーがこのソフトウェアを使用して独自のブロックテンプレートを構築する説得力のある理由は見当たらない。趣味の愛好家を巻き込むだけでは不十分だ。この戦いに勝つためには、分散型マイニングを中央集権型の代替案よりも収益性の高いものにする必要がある。

Braidpoolはもう一つの非常に有望なプロジェクトだ。成功を願っている。分散型のモノリシックマイニングプールは非常に優れたものになるだろう。しかし、Braidpoolがあっても、モノリシックなマイニングプールというローカルマキシマムに閉じ込められている気がする。

チャンスの香りがする。技術スタックの見過ごされている層に焦点を当てることで、ビットコインの大きな問題を解決する道が見える。新しいアイデアやアーキテクチャを使って、分散型マイニングにサイファーパンクのエネルギーを注ぎ込むことができると考えている。これが成功すれば、この努力の成果は革新と人間の生産性の津波を引き起こすだろう。私はその波に乗る準備ができている。

私の秘かな望みは、誰もが理解できる大きな存在的リスクを解決することで、心理的な勝利を得ることだ。これにより、将来の大きな対立を回避できるかもしれない。プレブの凍結派の大部分を巻き込むことができれば、ファットキャットを切り離す必要はない。圧倒的なコンセンサスが得られれば、彼らも方向転換し、莫大な富を守るためにその流れに乗るだろう。孫子は「敵に退路を残せ」と言った。この知恵はここで直接適用できると思う。

凍結派に慎重であることが正しいと証明し、ビットコインへの存在的脅威を克服し、もし巧みに感情的な知性を持って行動すれば、彼らの注意を次の差し迫った危機、すなわち信頼性のある自己保管をすべての人にスケールする問題に向けることができる。

どうすればこれを実現できるのか分からない。これは社会的影響力のゲームであり、私は意図的にそれを避けてきた領域だ。これはまだ未熟なアイデアで、頭の中で考え続けている状態だ。皆さんの中で良い視点を共有したり、このアイデアを進める人がいれば教えてほしい。

---

背景説明 by Chat GPT

このコメントは、ビットコインの現状についての議論に対する洞察を提供し、特に以下の問題を指摘しています:

1. リーダーシップの喪失とその影響

「善意の独裁者」モデルからリーダーレスのコンセンサスへ移行するという試みが、過去に類似例のない未知の挑戦である点を強調しています。

2. 危機までの停滞とそれによる分裂

技術的な問題やスケーリングの課題が危機的レベルに達するまで、進展がないと予測され、その結果、新たなリーダーシップが登場してもコミュニティの分裂が避けられないとしています。

3. 早すぎる凍結のリスク

プレブ凍結派は慎重に進めるべきという点では正しいものの、変化への不安が行動の抑制につながり、結果的にビットコインの可能性を低下させるリスクがあると述べています。

4. 採掘ソフトウェアの遅れとその影響

採掘レイヤーが他の技術スタックと比較して見落とされていることが、中央集権化の一因であり、この問題を解決することでビットコイン全体に革新をもたらす可能性があると示唆しています。

nostr:nevent1qqsxeefjpcr0pdcgttnmqnx7a3t3ju73qdh876lyhnqfrep09pxwwngpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsygxnq5k28c74ywc7eqr8r6cmhgz30gh4ytse2audeq7aqw5dsjshpcpsgqqqqqqs29fjeh