cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
SV / ABC thoughts.
I don't know why people think that SV is locking the protocol anymore than others. Changing to 128mb, then 500mb, etc is a change. Adding op-modes that were disabled is a change. Disabling p2sh is a change. Allowing miners to claim coins as fees if Txs use particular op-codes is a change. And really I have no conviction that the changes will stop there. Whether some of these changes are a reversion to the original protocol to me doesn't matter, they are still changes.
Additionally if they refuse to make changes that are needed, for instance for securities sake, then that would be a concern. Privacy: I'm mixed on whether bitcoin needs more privacy or not. But this is another area where SV may refuse to change. Is that good or bad?
I do have some belief that SV is more interested in Bitcoin Cash as cash instead of using it for other things, and yet from this camp we see things like the Bitcoin Token protocol by Clemens Ley (and for which nChain may have a relevant patent). So really we don't know where they are headed.
On the ABC side they are behaving a bit like Bitcoin is an early project with few participants. To me this is their biggest flaw. I feel like they are doing things they think are needed to both scale and protect the coin. But they do this without that much community involvement at times.
The reorg protection recently added was only done because of the adversarial environment they are in because of nChain/Coingeek. So while I don't like it, I understand it. When you have deep pockets (Calvin) dedicated to attacking your chain, extreme steps may be necessary. Although personally I would prefer if they were able to protect the chain by increasing the hash power even more than they have.
The CTOR change really seems unnecessary, and should have been debated more. No one has convinced me this will have a huge effect on validation times, the case needs to be simple. But largely I don't see this a major "protocol' change. It is just an optimization really.
OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY also were not communicated well to the larger community even if these were discussed between dev groups for a longer period. They seem like things that will help some people launch cool projects, but I'm unaware of the larger need for these.
Largely they are correct that we may not be ready for 128mb yet, but the last thing we need is to be stuck at a fixed block size for years.
ABC needs to communicate their philosophy on op-codes as well as other changes. What will they add or do next? Without this, they are sort of lost. They need to get their message down clearer.
--
Ok, now I've covered all the points. What else is there to discuss
I don't know why people think that SV is locking the protocol anymore than others. Changing to 128mb, then 500mb, etc is a change. Adding op-modes that were disabled is a change. Disabling p2sh is a change. Allowing miners to claim coins as fees if Txs use particular op-codes is a change. And really I have no conviction that the changes will stop there. Whether some of these changes are a reversion to the original protocol to me doesn't matter, they are still changes.
Additionally if they refuse to make changes that are needed, for instance for securities sake, then that would be a concern. Privacy: I'm mixed on whether bitcoin needs more privacy or not. But this is another area where SV may refuse to change. Is that good or bad?
I do have some belief that SV is more interested in Bitcoin Cash as cash instead of using it for other things, and yet from this camp we see things like the Bitcoin Token protocol by Clemens Ley (and for which nChain may have a relevant patent). So really we don't know where they are headed.
On the ABC side they are behaving a bit like Bitcoin is an early project with few participants. To me this is their biggest flaw. I feel like they are doing things they think are needed to both scale and protect the coin. But they do this without that much community involvement at times.
The reorg protection recently added was only done because of the adversarial environment they are in because of nChain/Coingeek. So while I don't like it, I understand it. When you have deep pockets (Calvin) dedicated to attacking your chain, extreme steps may be necessary. Although personally I would prefer if they were able to protect the chain by increasing the hash power even more than they have.
The CTOR change really seems unnecessary, and should have been debated more. No one has convinced me this will have a huge effect on validation times, the case needs to be simple. But largely I don't see this a major "protocol' change. It is just an optimization really.
OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY also were not communicated well to the larger community even if these were discussed between dev groups for a longer period. They seem like things that will help some people launch cool projects, but I'm unaware of the larger need for these.
Largely they are correct that we may not be ready for 128mb yet, but the last thing we need is to be stuck at a fixed block size for years.
ABC needs to communicate their philosophy on op-codes as well as other changes. What will they add or do next? Without this, they are sort of lost. They need to get their message down clearer.
--
Ok, now I've covered all the points. What else is there to discuss
