pull down to refresh
517 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 10 Jun \ on: I'm Steve Lee, Spiral lead, AMA! AMA
You recently stated that SV2 benefits everyone while DATUM only benefits a single VC-backed startup. How is that true when SV2 and DATUM are both published under the exact same FOSS MIT license?
From my perspective, OCEAN should be lauded, not criticized, for their efforts to improve Bitcoin for everyone by releasing their software free to the world.
Aside from the licensing topic, can you provide your technical assessment of the pros/cons between SV2 and DATUM? Which user groups are better suited for each?
-
SV2 has had broad industry contribution with funding or development from Foundry, Braiins, Galaxy, Hut8, Block, Spiral, and Blockstream. It is a true public good that isn't dependent upon a single company.
-
My understanding is that DATUM is closed source on the pool side. If Ocean's DATUM pool is open source, it'd be great if someone could post a link to it.
I do laud Ocean's intended goal of decentralization. My criticism of it is that they didn't introduce anything novel with DATUM, which functionality-wise is a subset of SV2, which already existed prior to Ocean. The Ocean team "doesn't like Rust" and also demonstrated a lack of understanding of what SV2 even is, which seems to have led them to a path of creating their own version.
I'm skeptical other pools are going to adopt DATUM. Worse, Antpool just announced a new decentralized mining pool solution. Details haven't been shared, but I worried it will be yet-another protocol. Competition is good in general, but in this case, if each pool has their own "protocol for decentralization" it defeats the intended purpose. Instead, it will create even more vendor lock-in as miners would have increased switching costs between pools. Therefore, it is very important for miners to adopt a single protocol standard that has widespread support in the industry.
reply