Avatar
Reproducibility Matters
1912dbbc2491035b1a376b0acf47bf431d508ea5e4ecea644ffa79311849fa5d
Just a charlatan

Good luck! Are your lectures in Spanish? Our comms lecture was in English even though none of the teaching staff were native speakers.

Replying to Avatar Rusty Russell

I listened to the What Bitcoin Did Saylor podcast, and I really want to respond, though that may be unwise. But I want thoughtful, fearless content in my feed, so I should start making some, right?

Firstly, while analogies can provide useful guide rails for understanding, listening to people *arguing* using analogies makes you stupider. Debate the thing itself, not the words about the thing: it hurts my head to even think about doing this, so I won't.

Let's set my priors first: I assume we're talking about technically solid, well-vetted, backward compatible protocol changes: this is the minimum bar.

I don't wholesale agree with Saylor's "don't threaten anyone's investment" hard limit. This has happened multiple times in the past, from the dust limit breaking SatoshiDice, enabling Lightning threatening miner fees (real or not), and segwit breaking stealth ASICBoost. These interests can, and will, stand up for themselves and will compete against other benefits of changes.

To be explicit: I consider any protocol change which makes block space usage more efficient to be a win!

Obviously Saylor is invested in Bitcoin the asset, and can afford to do all his business onchain in any conceivable scenario. His projection of a Bitcoin world in which there are 100,000 companies and governments who use Bitcoin as the base layer is interesting:

1. This does not need "smart contracts", just signatures. By this model, Bitcoin Script was a mistake.

2. It can work if Bitcoin does not scale and is incredibly expensive to spend and hold. By this model, the consumer hardware wallet industry is a dead-end and needs to pivot to something else (nostr keys, ecash?)

3. You could do this with gold, today? Bitcoin here is simply an incremental, not fundamental, improvement. I think this is suggestive, though: that such a network would not be long-term stable, and very much subject to capture.

4. In this view, Saylor is simply a gold bug with first mover advantage, shilling his bags. That's fine, but it's important to understand people's motivations.

5. This vision does not excite me. I wouldn't have left Linux development to work on making B2B commerce more efficient. I wouldn't get up at 5:30am for spec calls, and I sure as hell wouldn't be working this cheap.

I believe we can make people's UTXOs more powerful, and thus feel a moral responsibility to do so. This gives them more control over their own money, and allows more people to share that control. I assume that more people will do good things than stupid things, because assuming the other way implies that someone should be able to stop them, and that's usually worse.

I believe the result will be a more stable, thus useful, Bitcoin network. I am aware that this will certainly benefit people with very different motivations than me (Saylor).

Thanks for reading, and sorry for the length!

The two things that irked me was the misunderstanding around soft forks and the constant comparison of our engineering with aircraft engineering. Aircrafts have an intense maintenance schedule, last 30 years, and have a long supply chain. Things that don't translate well to what we do.

I also got the impression that the past soft forks were apparently in the disinterest of miners, when in truth miners were often fighting users over increasing the block size. The idea that past miner expectation has to be fulfilled at any cost seems bad too. There is no single expectation and it is not clear which point in time we should take to measure this expectation. I get the feeling that the whole argument seemingly caters to the big public mining companies. But we already have soft fork activation mechanisms for them to express their opinions, so the whole line of arguments feels like a straw man for what you already pointed out as a 'gold bug' vision.

Cash on the internet is my goal and this seems to be running against it a bit.

Soon going back to the dry stone walling construction site.

Need an actual dev to ask him this question. Someone who might to not ask a strawman question leading him to provide a strawman answer.

Gotta say, using 4 programming languages at the same time to work on the bitcoin kernel is kind of fun.

Huh, so std::shared_ptr really is evil.

Who wants to run a Bitcoin full node on their phone?

"The word 'crypto' today represents a repugnant abomination, a festering swamp of duplicity and moral decay, so utterly despicable and irreparably tainted that it casts a dark shadow over the noble aspirations of Bitcoin. This loathsome 'industry', birthed from the most corrupt recesses of greed and deception, deserves nothing but to be vehemently denounced and abandoned, lest its foul stench continues to defile the purity of Bitcoin's visionary premise."

Noooooo, stop having fun online, noooooo