Nostr Web Client

Replying to

ODELL

lmfao nice has nothing to do with it

if you want to fork to steal satoshis bitcoin, good luck

will not comply

Constant 1w ago 💬 1

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hanshan 1w ago 💬 1

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.

Constant 1w ago 💬 1

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?

Hanshan 1w ago 💬 1

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?

Constant 1w ago 💬 1

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.

Hanshan 1w ago 💬 1

"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.

Constant 1w ago 💬 1

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???

Hanshan 1w ago 💬 1

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.

Constant 1w ago 💬 1

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.

Hanshan 1w ago

agree this conversation is over.