pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 16h \ on: Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails bitcoin
The consensus rules allow you to have the social layer, so I actually see some sense in what Chris is saying here.
However, social layers don't have uniformity, so don't expect it to be totalitarian; instead, accept the fact that because the social layer is used for some things, there will be differing opinions and variable outcomes. You can argue against a view like a politician, but you don't have nukes, so you cannot force people to do what you want, like a politician.
bitcoin's identity as money cannot be enforced at the consensus layer
I agree with this: it's not money because someone says so. It's money because I want it.
Where I disagree is with the idea that bitcoin's identity as money needs to be enforced at all. It would be a strange thing to demand that gold only be used in trade and have no industrial or aethetic uses. However Chris feels about it, the fact remains that gold is useful to some people for things other than trade. Bitcoin is the same.
I'm happy to entertain any suggestions Chris has about changing the consensus rules of Bitcoin to make it a better tool for being money (which in my mind would primarily be improving its censorship resistant qualities).
But I don't understand demands that people only use a tool a certain way. Saying valid transactions shouldn't get mined is an oxymoron in a system like Bitcoin -- the whole point of the system is to ensure that valid transactions can get mined even when other people don't like them.
It would be about as effective for Chris to propose a EULA for Bitcoin. We can have everyone sign an agreement before they use it that says they promise to only use Bitcoin as money and nothing else.
reply
But you're going directly against what I posed: EULA and consensus changes to enforce one's view are anti-bitcoin, and that is also not what Chris is saying in what you quoted: he's saying that it is impossible to do it in consensus.
So what I add is: since it is impossible in consensus, it's impossible period. And thus there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine.
reply
since it is impossible in consensus, it's impossible. And thus there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine.
This is a good observation. I think I would extend it though to say "there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine. But also getting worked up about it is pointless.
that is also not what Chris is saying
He says: "the only way to enforce that bitcoin stays money is if we enforce its usage as money at the social/mempool layer"
This sounds like EULAs to me. I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.
reply
But also getting worked up about it is pointless.
If there is no alternative, then getting worked up about it is useful if you channel that energy towards building the alternative. Once there is an alternative, there is indeed nothing to be truly upset about.
I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.
I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere", simply because I think that the usage of bitcoin should only be enforced minimally in the consensus layer. The larger you make consensus' responsibility, the more problematic and potentially oppressive it becomes. I won't support any consensus change to limit currently available freedoms, even if that means there will be abuse.
Rigidity can be solved by running a pruned node + whatever filters you desire + LN, but running a full archival node will today, and in the future, require a sacrifice to the morality of the data you're serving. After all, Luke put scripture on the chain and I'm serving that.
reply
I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere"
Yes, this is definitely an improvement on what I said. It's also helpful for me to think about this in the context of freedom. Consensus being the minimum set of rules we all need to agree to in order for Bitcoin to work.
reply
There is another thing that was said in that thread, that sipa quoted and that I also liked:
the point of Bitcoin is not to take power away from a central group and give it to the people, it’s to take power away from the central group and give it to no one at all.
This is what I have believed about Bitcoin since day 1 (which is for me 2013.) I also have always held Bitcoin Core (in my mind, I don't really want to argue with maintainers) to exactly that standard, and although it didn't always succeed in the most precise definition of it, it broadly has1.
Footnotes
-
Note that now that @schmidty's PR is merged, it broadly has once more satisfied the "standard"; if that PR would have been closed, action may have been needed, and I was personally preparing for the contingency, to at least make patches and how-to-patch guides / guix builds, and maybe more, but I am really glad that it isn't needed. ↩
reply
There's a really great line in Lord of the Rings about Sauron and the ring:
He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream.
It works so well with Bitcoin I used a variation of it on a poster:
Thanks for the insights you shared. It's because of things like this that Bitcoin is endlessly captivating to me.
reply