those are all concepts I've advanced since the beginning. why won't
@shadders or
@Otaci just state the obvious like "we would never support coin inflation or advance code granting the 1M Satoshi coins to CSW if he doesn't produce the private keys"? remember, all I wanted was a quote from them that I could link to when battling trolls like u/zectro on this matter that seems to keep coming up from skeptics. I'm an ally and we're in friendly territory. that's it. the way they worded their refusal leaves the door slightly open. it's not like other devs haven't tried things as crazy as this concept sounds; 1mb caps , Blockstream, exchange/miner collusion, checkpoints, and now IFP.
I think it's more about perceived value in refuting PoSM vs just getting the work done.
These days I am seeing less value in challenging people like zectro online. Their relevance to people that matter, for me, seems to be diminishing. Engaging seems like legitimising them, I'm not interested in doing that. Let them keep shouting into the void.
I think Bitcoin is approaching (maybe already past) critical mass where people like zectro will ultimately come to be seen as 'flat earthers' or such like. It's a waste of time arguing with them.
Now this is not to say that you raising concerns is the same thing
please don't get me wrong on that! Your concerns are possibilities that should be considered, lest we become dogmatic in our beliefs and end up blindsided because we refused to consider unpalatable possiblities.
I think the refusal of Shadders and/or Dan to engage in this topic, speaks to their disinclination to engage with trolls like zectro, whether directly or via a proxy. I think it's better to starve trolls of food, they cannot and do not want to be reasoned with, attempting to do so just raises visibility. I sense that may be part of their reasoning.
I do understand how their refusal to engage could be interpreted otherwise and I'm not going to suggest people shouldn't interpret things however they want to, but I did want to offer my interpretation as one possibility.
One of the greatest lessons for me over the last year or so, has been understanding how the inherent value of something differs from its perception. I think at the moment society is hyper focused on the latter, in particular the rise of social media, and the general increased connectedness of people has created a new era of scrutiny/celebrity, under which those that excel in appealing to others are finding some value. I also think the global consciousness is going through some awkward growing pains as a result.
I see this undercurrent of 'appeasing the crowd' as a form of surrogation, that is the bias whereby the measure of a thing becomes more important than the thing itself. The mundane truth of things doeasnt get you likes and subscribes, doesn't signal significance to others in the social game. So it is assigned a lesser value, and 'fake news' prevails.
Some of the philosophical discussion in ICU has covered these ideas (see Plato's Republic, on the nature of justice).
Of course the marketeers would tell me I'm wrong, and that public perception is what sells, and sadly they are in a pragmatic sense correct to some degree. So I think unfortunately there is compulsion to balance the pursuit of the true nature of bitcoin with also appealing to the masses. Whilst I think the Coingeek arm drives this forward, I get the impression nChain is less concerned with this, taking a more principled approach (no disrespect to Coingeek!). I think this explains why dan/shadders are not compelled to try and defend CSW when questions such as this arise.
For me any assertion from them adds little weight to the argument, with all due respect they are just words. A man is defined by his actions etc.
Zectro of course cannot and will not act. All he has are words, and he will take the words of Shadders/Dan and weave them to his own ends. Claiming everything, and yet proving nothing; "they are employees, they are bound to say that" or some such like. Any assurances do not assuage the impartials much, but they serve as "proof" to the detractors that have proven time and time again that these "nonproofs" are a valuable commodity to them (just look at all of the nonsense from the floppy man!)
I think the whole thing compares well with what CSW wrote about Sartre, and signing. People constantly demand 'proof' of things, that in actual fact are in no way actual proof. Confirmation bias is something that everyone is prone to (this whole post could be attributed to that!)
I don't expect you to agree with any of the above, but I do think its as equally worthy of consideration as the notion that maybe CSW is planning the long con of the century!
FWIW I also don't think you are a 'random'. I remember things
and I am mightily pleased at your dedication over the years to furthering this ongoing and epic discussion. A forum within a forum
