pull down to refresh
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.
Good points.
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.
Probably the shittiest outcome: crying wolf, and giving impetus to the whole practice getting swept into the "wolf-crying" category in the future.
Exactly! That's why I linked those specific minutes. Because they show that people are thinking about it but are also seeing some major challenges that need to be solved. I could have also linked the BIP-0360 PR which has been a work in progress for 15 months - and that is after many months of prior public and private discussion.
Yes, there are differing opinions about the urgency, and yeah, maybe Adam should sometimes not tweet what he thinks, because he is undeniably a dev whisperer and has bigger influence within the Bitcoin developer space than most. But Saylor or Carter cannot make this process go any faster by commenting on it, nor will it be more robust.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if QC is the threat or not. All cryptography must be assumed to eventually be broken, so ultimately, bitcoiners gaining experience with what an algo rollover looks like in a fully decentralized consensus system will benefit future generations. What an algo rollover should not look like? Endless back and forth about urgency instead of solutions.
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?