pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @leaf 21 Sep \ parent \ on: Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns bitcoin
To understand the arguments, you need to understand the full context, tradeoffs, and nuances. I'd say that basically requires you to be a dev.
A layperson trying to understand a technical debate is like them trying to understand a professional chess game. The moves themselves don't and never will capture the full ocean of possibilities underneath.
I've seen many times on software projects where management sides with the dev that most confidently or neatly presents their opinion. Or management think the little knowledge they do have makes their opinion just as valid as the devs and start making technical decisions.
There is no easy answer to this problem on software projects - and with bitcoin it is much much harder.
One of the best tools I've seen to allow management to know who to trust are 360 degree reviews. But those don't exist in open source dev and could be gamed.
Still seems pretty transparent to me.
Most people aren't bothering to read that stuff anyway. Even with myself, while I try to verify a few things here and there, there is still a huge amount of stuff I am taking on trust.
To understand the arguments, you need to understand the full context, tradeoffs, and nuances. I'd say that basically requires you to be a dev.
I'm probably underestimating this; I was literate in systems programming when I first ran into Bitcoin and it drew my interest. I do think that the mail list is a better place to start than pull request comments; it's still technical but it's more conceptual than the discussion on the repo.
There is no easy answer to this problem on software projects - and with bitcoin it is much much harder.
Agreed that it is much much harder, but that's a reason to put the bar much much higher, on
bitcoin/bitcoin (or anything else being the defacto reference implementation by choice or otherwise) most of all. And like I said, it sucks to be of this opinion because I actually like a lot of the people that are currently under personal attack.Still seems pretty transparent to me.
For now it's much better than it was when I got here, I agree. It is possible that seeing a larger shift in what I think is the wrong direction is confirmation bias on my part; I'm fallible too. I'm super happy to hear opinions that bring nuance to that, but it does make me wonder: are you not worried at all?
Even with myself, while I try to verify a few things here and there, there is still a huge amount of stuff I am taking on trust.
On trust of what, though? The person that proposed a diff or the process that everything gets reviewed and things get tested/fuzzed/scrutinized, and bad ideas get challenged?
I make a point out of this because I think that the biggest problem I see right now is the complete focus on ad-hominem of people that are frustrated, and nothing about the process; i.e. I saw something that clearly only focuses on names posted here on SN just 2h ago, and yesterday, and the day before that, and also in this thread, even after I link some evidence that would soften the focus on personae, or maybe especially. If I were to be in the mood to be depressed, I'd open nitter.net or amethyst global feed and see it being infinitely worse outside of SN.
reply
are you not worried at all?
I don't see any incentive to hide discussion. Although I think future devs may need to be anonymous for their own safety as the stakes get higher.
As for info for the masses, I think it probably doesn't matter what the masses think on contentious issues, because they're not stakeholders who have any control over what happens. Even if they can make it seem like they do.
the biggest problem I see right now is the complete focus on ad-hominem of people that are frustrated, and nothing about the process
I think this is where the analogy with politics makes a lot of sense. There is a lot more discussion of Trump's character than there is of his policies.
I'd expect discourse around bitcoin to mirror the quality of political discourse: some pockets of good analysis, but mostly uninformed junk and lies. And maybe that's fine if the real stakeholders can tell the difference.
reply
I don't see any incentive to hide discussion.
Yet it literally has happened (on comments that I personally found overly aggressive, but that's a feature of polarization). The danger is that if you silence someone that is emotional and already polarized, then there will be resentment. And unless there's a reason for these people to go away, which can happen in 2 ways on Bitcoin, neither of them good outcomes, or get with the program through some amazing charm offensive, resentment will grow. I think I saw a mild charm offensive but it didn't work, so resentment will grow further, and I think that's what we see happening.
Dismissing people that use Bitcoin is imho not a good solution, especially not "the masses". If we'd pose that they are powerless then just wait until influencers get the ear of what you call "real stakeholders". Politics is a dangerous game for those that aren't relentlessly chasing power, and honestly, it should have no place in the reference implementation. Also, the only devs I remember being good at politics were those that were complete sociopaths. If you have one of these in your echo chamber, more than luck is needed.
reply
If we'd pose that they are powerless then just wait until influencers get the ear of what you call "real stakeholders".
Trump got elected despite a huge media campaign against him. And bitcoin won't have to achieve a similar feat since it's not a democracy.
Bitcoin stakeholders are liable to be intelligent and will have a huge financial incentive to get to the truth.
If stakeholders need the public's blessing - which I'm not sure they do - they will fight that battle.
Politics is a dangerous game for those that aren't relentlessly chasing power, and honestly, it should have no place in the reference implementation.
Not sure politics can be avoided.
I have been thinking about measuring consensus, and my feeling is that people aren't doing a good job of it currently.
For example, I think if there was a futures market on the knots drama somehow, it would have been immediately seen as nothing. And they'd probably have left the knots crew to shout and scream about it.
If you have one of these in your echo chamber, more than luck is needed
The joy right now is that bitcoin has technically savvy, ideological nutcases with large bags who would happily risk their entire stack and dump a fork coin if things get contentious.
My opinion isn't fully formed in this area so take everything I say with a grain of salt. I saw Lopp on some podcast talk about this recently and it was apparent he'd considered things I have not.