Nostr Web Client

Listened to a good deal of nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m’s latest podcast with Peter McCormack. He wants to ossify the protocol for the most part because he thinks it’s already successful, and that the risk from tinkering outweighs the upside.

That’s fair, but there’s one point (maybe I missed it) that he seems to elide over, and that’s that the devs can’t do anything on their own if the nodes don’t go along with it, correct?

So he seems to position the devs as centralized tinkerers, messing with the free market, but the devs are more like people making new inventions, products, services, possibilities, and the market is the nodes who can adopt or reject them.

So Saylor, it seems, is arguing for cutting off the inventors because of the problems they might create, but that battle should be fought at the node level IMO, persuade people these inventions are harmful or pointless, and see what happens. Or fund other inventions that are better.

But cutting off the innovation at the root because of the possibility that people might adopt bad ones seems out of step with the spirit of the protocol.

I love Saylor, guy has huge balls, but he seemed to be bullshitting, reaching a bit with some of the analogies he was making.

Again, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding either what he was saying or how the protocol works, but that was my impression.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Gowingnut 1y ago

Considering a rich history of failed attempts, would you encourage improvers to tinker with something that finaly succeeded and survived?

Would you want a group of enthusiasts to tinker with your own DNA trying to add new features?

Chris Liss 1y ago

Remember, the tinkering doesn’t change anything. The nodes (the market) have to adopt or reject the changes.

Do you want Saylor to be the arbiter of what bitcoin should be, or a free market of node runners who can accept or reject the proposals?

In the world, this is how innovation works: people tinker, come up with new ideas they bring to market, and the market decides whether or not they get adopted. Bitcoin itself is one of those ideas.

I actually think if it were to ossify, it would die. Not right away, but new technology (quantum computing, e.g.) might challenge it, and you’d have sent all the developers who might upgrade it home.

Gowingnut 1y ago

I understand your point that applying changes is consensus based and it's the best way ever invented. And it implies that Saylor can have his own opinion, just like you and I do. Clearly he can have somewhat bigger reputation effect on the consensus mechanism than we do, and he earned it. Yet I don't think he's in power to stop enthusiasts, but he has same rights as we do to spread his vision.

We can debate on how many active contributors does BTC need for the time WHEN absolutely necessary changes to the protocol will have to be made. But a situation when BTC needs a new quantum resistant hashing algo and there's noone in the world able to do it - is impossible to imagine, imho.

I don't see current situation as anything problematic. There are enthusiasts who work, and they sometimes become too enthusiastic lol, but there are those who make their work more difficult and it's just fine. I like this balance of powers and it works great, imo.

Chris Liss 1y ago

He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, just pointing out he won’t get away with poor or disingenuous arguments after building a following with strong and principled ones.

Gowingnut 1y ago

His arguments will definitely be(and definitely are) poor and disingenuous in someone's eyes no matter what they are.

That's the beauty of it.