Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

why doesn't Adam Back remove that stupid Twitter handle of his "inventor of hashcash (bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control)"?

esp after bona-fide real world academic crypto researchers called him out on it?

 

[tynwald]

He's a shameless liar. That's a simple observation of how many times he's been called out on multiple lies and never stops. Not to be trusted on anything, ever.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Richy_T]

It's even worse than that. If you take his version of events (lol) he and a bunch of his "Cyberpunk" buddies had been working on how to turn it into a working currency. Which makes it even more sad that he didn't recognize it when it was not only staring him in the face but was actually being waved in front of his face by Satoshi. I wish I had been given such an opportunity.

Bitcoin: Hashcash with all the things that Adam Back didn't think were worth a damn.

 

[lunar]

Gold

 

[Epilido]

Just saw this on tv, Verizon gets it.

 

[cypherdoc]

Futures. looking good:

 

[dwaltrip]

Gold

What do you guys think of Gavin's response to Andreas's question about personal attacks? The question starts at 54:48 in the above episode.

He basically says he thinks all of the core developers have bitcoin's best interests at heart, and that they want bitcoin to succeed, but that there is just a disagreement about priority, risks, and benefits.

Earlier in the episode Gavin mentioned he thought core had evolved into a good amount of "developers developing for developers and ignoring their customers", so I'm sure he believes that is a big reason for a lot of the contention that has risen up.

I kind of wish Andreas would have also asked about the fee market, and if Gavin thought that Blockstream has any inherent business incentives to promote off-chain solutions instead of possible on-chain scaling.

 

[AdrianX]

u/jstolfi on fire, I hadn't thought about LN adoption like this. it relay is a horrible solution. He makes some great observations up thread too.

 

[steffen]

What do you guys think of Gavin's response to Andreas's question about personal attacks? The question starts at 54:48 in the above episode.

I think neither Andreas nor Gavin have watched this video:

If they had they would know it would be unthinkable that bitcoin would not be attempted to be derailed by TPTB.

 

[awemany]

What do you guys think of Gavin's response to Andreas's question about personal attacks?

I think Gavin wants to stay out of the drama and for that reason - and maybe others we can only speculate on - take the highest road there is, which means consistently showing good will to everyone, forever.

I also think that makes him actually wrong now on Borgstream's intentions. See his reply to me showing Greg actively misattributing Github commits. He's ignoring actual data with his good will.

However, I do not think that it is in any way damaging the cause. Quite the contrary, he's extremely hard to attack for Borgstream now. All the Borgstream BS certainly needs to be called out by many, but that is ongoing.

They are also getting better at destroying their credibility themselves. If there is one thing techies and I think quite a lot of other people hate to the core (no pun) - it is lawyers with bogus lawsuits.

Adam pondering about joining a lawsuit was the latest credibility-reducing action, and as far as I could see, he even woke up a few people over in North Korea.

Pesky cypherpunks my ass.

 

[sgbett]

He's not ignoring evidence, he's just not speculating as to motives. That is how good will works, its incredibly hard to keep it up though. I try to but often slip. I keep having to take breaks from BCT because it just sucks you in.

Anyone with a sound argument can defend a position quite easily with just facts. People without a sound argument can only troll by exaggeratiion, FUD, disinformation, ad hoc etc etc. Not being dragged down to that level is the best defence, as it reveals the trolling for what it is, and legitimises the soundly argued position.

Man is it ever hard to do though!

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

u/jstolfi on fire, I hadn't thought about LN adoption like this. it relay is a horrible solution. He makes some great observations up thread too.

This comment

But the explanation may be much simpler: they just don't realize what they are doing. Proceeding with their roadmap even before there is a plausibel sketch of the LN shows abysmal lack of software project management skills.

nails it.

on r/btc there have been so many jokes that presenting lightning as the "real" scaling solution now and holding back a blocksize increase is like stopping to build streets because we are working on teleportation. (and many more examples)

on r/buttcoin GMaxwell showed he has no answer on central problems of lightning.

jstolfi presented another big problem with lightning.

Ligtning will steal fees from miners

It's integration in wallets is incredibly complex.

Maybe it will work someday and will bring back node centralization (since every node gets fees by routing transactions) but chances are not very high. Higher than teleport, to be fair, but similar low than that we will use e-cars soon.

If Core devs present Lightning as the only real solution for scalability it can only mean one thing (assumed they are honest): They don't believe Bitcoin can scale at all. That's why they want to make it to a settlement network that is used - commercially - by blockstream's sidechains.

Dirty.

Why don't we just implement ripple or open transactions (stash) in the wallets? It would be much easier. Both are solution that already exist and don't need to be developed by the same people hat develop bitcoin.

 

[tynwald]

I think classic should support micropayment options like strawpay (and LN when it works). Just make a better (mousetrap) Bitcoin than Blockstream/Core are doing ... no more arguments on reddit

 

[awemany]

He's not ignoring evidence, he's just not speculating as to motives.

Gavin said something along the lines of 'I am sure everyone has the best for Bitcoin in mind.'

That is speculating about motives as well.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Why don't we just implement ripple or open transactions (stash) in the wallets? It would be much easier. Both are solution that already exist and don't need to be developed by the same people hat develop bitcoin.

Open Transactions is not a replacement for on-chain transaction capacity.

I do think OT has a place in Bitcoin wallets, but that place is adding entirely new functionality, not doing Bitcoin's job for it.

 

[cypherdoc]

check this out. it's President's Day here in the US and markets are closed. but not the futures. you never had a chance come tomorrow morning:

 

[albin]

Maybe it will work someday and will bring back node centralization (since every node gets fees by routing transactions) but chances are not very high.

The best insight into what they're thinking is probably Poon's Stalling Conference talk, where a very prominent part of the talk is basically handwaving away LN node centralization concerns with a very rough and poorly-explored thought experiment.

 

[sgbett]

Gavin said something along the lines of 'I am sure everyone has the best for Bitcoin in mind.'

That is speculating about motives as well.

You are right it is!... in good faith though

Whilst Back et al may very well be working in the best interests of their investors, how they are doing that can't be known for sure. To speculate on it just moves the debate way from technical merit and into the sordid muck raking.

All of which is, unfortunately, far more interesting to the average joe in the street :/

In any case, its just a waiting game now. The Chinese miner deadline will be interesting 17 days to go I think?

 

[awemany]

@sgbett

There is quite a heap of data as to the behavior of certain people on the Blockstream side, though. One example. Another one. Another one. And this is just part of the stuff that bubbled up in the last week.

All I have seen against Gavin so far is: "He went to the CIA and gave a talk !1!"