pull down to refresh
One more thing:
And I've probably overplayed my "quantum is fud" stance. I don't dismiss it.
Once upon a time, the idiom had it that "fud" was an unwarranted and illegitimate attempt to sow dissension by stoking fear, uncertainty, doubt. A kind of psy-op, engaged in by hostile actors.
Contemporary use seems to have flipped, to the extent that anybody pointing out weaknesses, downsides, danger is accused of FUDding. Like doubters of the glorious communist future once were, fud became the mark of people who lack sufficient conviction in the rightness of the cause.
It's funny that this would surface wrt Carter, who I remember making exactly this move around the time I first got into btc, where he was dismissing talk about the mining death spiral as fud, and ridiculing anybody who took it seriously. In my view, a person might think the MDS unlikely in practice, but it's a plausible outcome of the game theory of mining, and therefore a reasonable topic for people to discuss and think about mitigating.
Anyway. I personally would welcome more of what would today be considered fud, but that used to be considered the adversarial thinking the entire project is based on.
Would you welcome the "fud" if it were addressed with a note that you're personally borderline incompetent for not amplifying the message, that you are gatekeeping proposals that haven't been made and that generally, because of your involvement, being "extremely bearish" wrt Bitcoin is warranted?
Perhaps you're right though that "fud" is the wrong word, would you have issues with calling this "trolling"?
Would you welcome the "fud" if it were addressed with a note that you're personally borderline incompetent for not amplifying the message [...]
Nope.
would you have issues with calling this "trolling"?
We're getting too specific to Carter, which wasn't what I was objecting to originally, so I hesitate to comment.
Carter is kind of a douche [1], and I'm not advocating for him, or his behavior in this particular circumstance. I'm advocating for something bigger: the virtue, in general, of people surfacing well-articulated critiques and worries, about this topic or other relevant ones, that might be uncomfortable / upset certain narratives or stakeholders. I think that's been nearly lost in public discourse [2].
You might classify me as "man shaking fist at cloud" and that's not far wrong, I'm afraid.
[1] Note that being a douche doesn't mean he's not smart and that some of his insights and writings haven't been remarkably good and useful to btc. People are not just one thing.
[2] I don't mean to imply it's been lost everywhere; but the "center stage" of btc discussion in the prominent places is a shitshow, imo. But perhaps it has never been otherwise? I wonder if I'm remembering a past that never existed.
People are not just one thing.
I agree. Also: people change.
the virtue, in general, of people surfacing well-articulated critiques and worries, about this topic or other relevant ones, that might be uncomfortable / upset certain narratives or stakeholders.
That's ok, but let's recall that in FOSS, if you're just brainfarting on the bird app and medium and whatever else platform pays you for the ad/subscription revenue your content generates, you're not really contributing.
Instead, the discussion precedes your action, and that's it. Telling devs what to do is lame and is the behavior of entitled little pricks. If you want change, make the change. If you get gatekept to be the forever-outsider, fork the code. It cannot be that something is an existential threat and then all one does is be a Karen about it and complain to the non-existing management.
I don't mean to imply it's been lost everywhere; but the "center stage" of btc discussion in the prominent places is a shitshow, imo.
I think the center stage of protocol development discussions used to be the dev mailing list and is now some mixture between delving and the mailing list. I do agree that it's changed, though in both places it's still relatively open and free of drama when compared to other places. I do think that the fora (bitcointalk and r/bitcoin) and especially twitter have always been a shitshow.
but let's recall that in FOSS, if you're just brainfarting on the bird app and medium and whatever else platform pays you for the ad/subscription revenue your content generates, you're not really contributing.
Not to nitpick, but I think this is a key point.
Btc is software for sure; it's also a social movement, and the latter is vastly more powerful than the former, although each has its own particular realm of potency. (If a node is running in the woods, and no one connects to it, is it still running?) One can contribute, deeply, foundationally, without writing a line of code. Carter has done so, certainly; as have mythical figures like Antonopoulos. Saylor himself is another good example.
Given that the active frontier of btc has moved past neckbeards mining on laptops to nation states and sovereign wealth funds, the hacker-in-basement model of contribution is an ever-smaller slice of what "contribution" means, pragmatically. Again, my goal isn't to nitpick; but if this entire class of contribution is invisible, then we'll have a skewed idea of how btc moves in the world, and for people who care about its success, it will be a distortion as grand as central planning of the price signal.
I agree, this is where the friction at. But it is also because I am talking about the protocol, not the scene. I'm really interested to learn what influence Saylor had over the protocol. Like... did he influence the blinding aspect of taproot? Did Carter design sequence locking? Did Antonopoulos in any way inspire low-S signatures?
But it is also because I am talking about the protocol, not the scene.
At the protocol level I don't think any of those people had much to do with anything. It will be interesting if that ever changes, although such things will probably be difficult to attribute.
That's what I thought too. So why are they talking about quantum algorithms and accusing people - that in a single meetup said more useful things about it than all of the influencers combined - that they are doing nothing?!?
My issue isn't with the fact that there are influencers. My issue is with them shooting from the hip about things they absolutely haven't given any meaningful thought to, yet are presenting it as fact. And then, because I have talked to Physics PHDs becomes insult to injury, as it's appeal to authority, where even the damn authority isn't authenticated.
I don't disagree with your sentiment at all, but in this particular case, I think you're defending some pretty nasty behavior. They're free to do that, and everyone is even free to repeat it. But, if they or their shills ever need something... tough luck.
You bring up an interesting point because if you ask me who I would want to be at the center of steering bitcoin, it seems like a vanishingly small set of people.
Someone with the technical chops to be realistic about what bitcoin can and can't do, and not just "dream big" in fanciful but unproductive ways. Thus, someone from the development community or at least adjacent to it.
But at the same time, someone with a sophisticated understanding of bitcoin's role in the world, including the risks and attack vectors presented by nation states and other economic/political actors. Thus someone from the political or economic community.
And again, at the same time, someone with a conservative, libertarian approach to things that doesn't try to solve every problem with either a technical or political solution, someone willing to let the market decide as a general first principle.
The cross section of all three of these seems like an incredibly small set.
Ultimately though, regardless of my or anyone else's opinions, bitcoin's fate is going to be determined by a free-for-all of potentially disparate interests, as with pretty much anything. It's just the nature of social consensus.
All this is what I find most fascinating about the space. The emergent reality of what happens and why it happens, how the various actors exert various kinds of force. That perspective is why I attribute such significance to these unfoldings of seemingly soft influence on an ostensibly hard technical project; and why I feel like exerting force here, in service of sensible things happening, and to enculturate useful ways of interacting, is worth doing, and more important than it seems.
I think Carter actually made the original fud dice:
fud became the mark of people who lack sufficient conviction in the rightness of the cause.
I don't get the sense that the response to Nic is that he doesn't have sufficient conviction. There are two attitudes I see expressed: 1) quantum threat is being used to push dangerous things on bitcoin and 2) quantum threat is being used to put pressure on bitcoin "governance."
In the context of my post, I am asking whether we should make some effort to appease the people who are actually fudding even when they are actually fudding.
Also I don't really think the definition of fud has changed: it's in the same set of words as terrorist and troll and as such it's always a little bit of rhetoric, it's wordy weapon to dismiss people. I'd wager that every legitimate threat has been called fud over the years, as have many illegitimate threats.
I think Carter actually made the original fud dice:
I forgot about that. The irony!
In the context of my post, I am asking whether we should make some effort to appease the people who are actually fudding even when they are actually fudding.
Fair. In that case, my answer is: no. "We" (the royal we) should meet legitimate critiques with well-reasoned responses. If "we" don't find the critique legitimate, there's not much use in responding to it -- it's not going to convince the FUDder, since (by definition) they're engaging in bad faith; and for the audience who may be reading, such engagement countenances the original bad-faith argument.
Also I don't really think the definition of fud has changed: it's in the same set of words as terrorist and troll and as such it's always a little bit of rhetoric, it's wordy weapon to dismiss people.
We appear to disagree on this point: once upon a time, my sense is that one could raise concerns that were viewed as actual concerns to be considered; the response was to consider them and (perhaps) counter them. Now, raising concerns is met with accusations of bad faith; and usually, idiotic personal slander and fourth-grade histrionics. That seems different and (relatively) new. (But, as mentioned elsewhere, perhaps I'm doing what everyone does, and remembering a past that was better than it was.)
I'd wager that every legitimate threat has been called fud over the years, as have many illegitimate threats.
That it assuredly true.
once upon a time...Now, raising concerns is met with accusations of bad faith; and usually, idiotic personal slander and fourth-grade histrionics.
Bitcoin developers (as seen at conferences and on the mailing list and on delving) have been considering quantum threats for several years and the larger community has taken them seriously: presidio did a whole conference about quantum. Chaincode released an excellent report on the topic. I don't think the first, or even most common, response to quantum computing has been personal slander or fourth-grade histrionics -- that just comes out eventually.
I will admit that I am more willing to entertain the fourth grade histrionics and personal slander because the little kid in me gets an evil joy out of the irreverence of Bitcoiners. I'm glad we make fun of each other in stupid ways.
In that way, I'm kinda like the little kid henchman in 90s movies who's always hanging around the villain and chuckling at his insults, but who isn't quick witted enough to even beat the doofus villain to the punch. I long for the days of retorts like "I know you are, but what am I?" and butthead.
I don't think the first, or even most common, response to quantum computing has been personal slander or fourth-grade histrionics -- that just comes out eventually.
That's context I didn't consider, and it makes a big difference.
I long for the days of retorts like "I know you are, but what am I?" and butthead.
Ha! When I read your original post, I thought to myself that if I had been the recipient of NVK's comment, "I know you are, but what am I?" would have been my retort.
How come you never hear that any more? It was probably the peak of the English language.
If we ever meet, brother, I promise you'll hear it. That and other idiotic "burns" form a core part of my repertoire IRL.
Thanks, it makes more sense in this context.
My beef, in general, is that when there's complicated and contentious issues afoot, how glorious if people would surface those contentious things, argue about them, and then something would happen in light of that argumentation. People don't have to agree, but there's real information in those divergent perspectives.
What happens in practice is that people already know what they want to believe, they throw ad-hominem attacks, score stupid "points" and make gambits that a 7-year old would recognize (see Adam Back and NVK, in your thread), and that's it. Whoever advocates for something you don't like is a-priori your enemy, who is stupid.
(Not saying you're doing this, just that I'm hypersensitive to it at this point. But it's the revealed truth of human nature, so I should just deal with it.)
This thread may be help to flesh out my point:
Hmm, I see what your saying. And I've probably overplayed my "quantum is fud" stance. I don't dismiss it.
I should have done a better job of writing out what I wanted to say.
From reading a fair bit about quantum stuff, my understanding is that most bitcoin developers do take the problem seriously, and there is a lot of work being done to push forward solutions.
By appeasement, I meant should we not ostracize the people like Carter, but rather put up with their breathless chicken little-ing?
As I said to Nic on X, if quantum resistance is the number one thing major capital allocators are concerned about, why don't they hire developers to write the code they want to see in the world? Where are the implementations on signet? Where are the projects he is VCing into existence?
He kept telling me that it was gatekeeping by the core devs, and I find that a ridiculous answer. If core devs really can achieve the level of gatekeeping he is saying, we should be working on that problem rather than qr.
This is an open network. At the very least, nic could back a new qr startup to solve this problem. Where is it?
I'm asking if we should appease people like nic and saylor not because quantum fud is completely made up, but because it may disarm what seems to me to be yet another way of attacking the distributed, decentralized, governance free thing that is Bitcoin.