BIP-110 is aligned more to the Bitcoin I want to see.
Is it though? Or is the underlying idea what Jeff aligns with?
I personally align with the underlying idea of (carefully!) looking at hardening against misuse, and with not having a defacto dependency on Core (or Knots). I do not align with BIP-110, at all. Not the solution, not the activation mechanics, not the temporary nature. Oh, and not that if you raise actual concerns that attack the claims of the proposal, that you get no response. It never moves past the bullshit.
On top, the entire rhetoric of "if you are against BIP-110, you are pro-spam" is showing how dangerous this episode of divide and conquer is, but I am not sure if Jeff actually thought about this particular thing. If anyone will win with this type of rhetoric that is seeded with bullshit, no matter who it is that does it, then we have to look real close at how hardened consensus truly is.
I watched the debate between Booth and Dixon as well and it truly was “idealism” vs “cynicism”. I’m not using “cynicism” to disparage Dixon’s views but to point out that he views things in a pragmatic way by “following the money”, no matter how bad a path it leads you. Booth did manage to pump son optimism in to Dixon though, over all good debate.
That does seem to be the case. I found it funny that Jeff called out Gloria for not understanding his thesis but missed the flip side of that, he doesn't seem to understand the technicals. Im not even remotely an expert on bitcoin code, but my CS background and all the posts @Murch has made here, as well as others on X like Adam Back and core devs, has made me somewhat confident that bip110 doesn't successfully do what it sets out to do. I haven't seen good arguments from the knots side as to how their side solves the spam problem, in fact they seem think it doesn't either, but trying is what counts. Which pretty much sums up idealists.
He made a slight criticism of her not owning bitcoin and not understanding his thesis, not much more context. I would assume he was referring to his "the natural state of the free market is deflation" thesis, and the arguments he builds off of that. He apparently learned these things while speaking with her in person.
Thanks. Makes me wonder whether she just didn’t let herself be cajoled into having an opinion on an economics topic. 🤔
I have had a few of those conversations, where someone was deeply involved in a different aspect of Bitcoin, and they seemed surprised when I wasn’t all over their favorite topic and ready to go with well thought-out opinions on it, which I obviously should have because I work full-time on Bitcoin. 🤷
He does come across that way. On the other hand, I went to an investor forum at Ego Death Capital where he gave a presentation. What I saw was a polished, skilled fundraiser. He left no doubt that he was a savvy, wealthy entrepreneur. The offices weren't that of a starry eyed crypto anarchist either. That's why I have trouble pigeon holing him.
He said that people need to do their own work on it. Jeff is just one dude, one node in the network. Idk if there's anyone more humble about their opinion, or influence than he.
What does that have to do with my comment? I don't disrespect Jeff, I just wonder if he really gamed out the proposal he says he is aligned with, preferably technically, just like he apparently gamed out Gloria being a potential spook.
I struggle a bit with this. Booth really damaged his credibility with me when he was promoting the Bitcoin is new physics woo-woo stuff earlier this year (#1438519).
That aside, I don't buy the argument that a specific developer was "planted" in Core by enemies of Bitcoin (gov'ts?) to...do something that makes sense to me.
I do think more heavily used and heavily reviewed implementations are a good idea, but it is not like Booth was trumpeting this cause last year (or even earlier when it was mostly unpopular -- I remember getting a lot of push back from bitcoiners for talking about libbitcoin in 2023.
On that note, I find it interesting that Voskuil, the leader of the libbitcoin project doesn't feel the need to come out and badmouth developers and accuse them vaguely of conspiracy to control Bitcoin. I think we could all learn a bit from the way he has navigated this debate.
If I was somehow against the success of Bitcoin, I would probably try to play the both sides against each other (first trying to wokify the Core, then trying to convince the idealist BIP110 guys to rally against CSAM, and that it’s because Core was captured, then watch with popcorn in hand how the community fragments.
If I was somehow against the success of Bitcoin...
Good strat and all, but I really don't think humans need a genius nemesis having something against the success of their projects to stumble over themselves without an external nudge. We're very well capable of getting in our own way regardless.
I missed that physics woo-woo post when you made it. It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always. I've been tossing around the idea of making a post about it to get thoughts from our local math proof nerds and lawyers.
It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always.
I had the exact same thought too. I am fairly confident Jeff does appreciate the nuance. But even so, it doesn't protect you from your own blind spots.
Not saying I found one, I'm not versed enough along the same chain of thought. Jeff's biggest issue may well be that no one else seems to be into the same rabbit hole deep enough to challenge his work.
I would be curious to read such cases (if a link or two is convenient). I haven't been tracking it for as long as some, but my impression is that Voskuil has refrained from insinuations of conspiracy.
I wouldn't call it "insinuations of conspiracy" either. I've had plenty of interesting conversations with him that all left me with a new perspective. He does accuse Bitcoin Core of gatekeeping both the consensus code and funding, but I think that is kind of understandable given his project and that he wants people to take it seriously.
Voskuil doesn't feel the need to come out and badmouth developers
I do dislike it when he narrates different choices in tradeoffs, especially legacy ones, as incompetence. No one is perfect though, and when he does one can just ignore it, because it won't be a thing for more than a few hours.
I think that Jeff is right about the mechanic. I just think he's wrong about the players in this case.
The first principles here are what most people miss & how I think Jeff is approaching this. BIP110 represents a new leap forward in Bitcoin decentralization.
Is it though? Or is the underlying idea what Jeff aligns with?
I personally align with the underlying idea of (carefully!) looking at hardening against misuse, and with not having a defacto dependency on Core (or Knots). I do not align with BIP-110, at all. Not the solution, not the activation mechanics, not the temporary nature. Oh, and not that if you raise actual concerns that attack the claims of the proposal, that you get no response. It never moves past the bullshit.
On top, the entire rhetoric of "if you are against BIP-110, you are pro-spam" is showing how dangerous this episode of divide and conquer is, but I am not sure if Jeff actually thought about this particular thing. If anyone will win with this type of rhetoric that is seeded with bullshit, no matter who it is that does it, then we have to look real close at how hardened consensus truly is.
Jeff seems like an idealist more than pragmatist (as do many BIP110 supporters).
I also noticed that when he debated Simon Dixon a few months ago about Bitcoin’s role in the future.
I watched the debate between Booth and Dixon as well and it truly was “idealism” vs “cynicism”. I’m not using “cynicism” to disparage Dixon’s views but to point out that he views things in a pragmatic way by “following the money”, no matter how bad a path it leads you.
Booth did manage to pump son optimism in to Dixon though, over all good debate.
That does seem to be the case. I found it funny that Jeff called out Gloria for not understanding his thesis but missed the flip side of that, he doesn't seem to understand the technicals.
Im not even remotely an expert on bitcoin code, but my CS background and all the posts @Murch has made here, as well as others on X like Adam Back and core devs, has made me somewhat confident that bip110 doesn't successfully do what it sets out to do. I haven't seen good arguments from the knots side as to how their side solves the spam problem, in fact they seem think it doesn't either, but trying is what counts. Which pretty much sums up idealists.
I didn’t watch the interview. Did he reveal the context of the conversation in which he determined his stance on Gloria’s understanding of Bitcoin?
He made a slight criticism of her not owning bitcoin and not understanding his thesis, not much more context. I would assume he was referring to his "the natural state of the free market is deflation" thesis, and the arguments he builds off of that.
He apparently learned these things while speaking with her in person.
Thanks. Makes me wonder whether she just didn’t let herself be cajoled into having an opinion on an economics topic. 🤔
I have had a few of those conversations, where someone was deeply involved in a different aspect of Bitcoin, and they seemed surprised when I wasn’t all over their favorite topic and ready to go with well thought-out opinions on it, which I obviously should have because I work full-time on Bitcoin. 🤷
Wait, you dont know all the intricate details of bitcoin mining stabilizing renewable energy power grids in Texas?!?! The horror! Lol /s
He does come across that way. On the other hand, I went to an investor forum at Ego Death Capital where he gave a presentation. What I saw was a polished, skilled fundraiser. He left no doubt that he was a savvy, wealthy entrepreneur. The offices weren't that of a starry eyed crypto anarchist either. That's why I have trouble pigeon holing him.
He said that people need to do their own work on it. Jeff is just one dude, one node in the network. Idk if there's anyone more humble about their opinion, or influence than he.
What does that have to do with my comment? I don't disrespect Jeff, I just wonder if he really gamed out the proposal he says he is aligned with, preferably technically, just like he apparently gamed out Gloria being a potential spook.
I struggle a bit with this. Booth really damaged his credibility with me when he was promoting the Bitcoin is new physics woo-woo stuff earlier this year (#1438519).
That aside, I don't buy the argument that a specific developer was "planted" in Core by enemies of Bitcoin (gov'ts?) to...do something that makes sense to me.
I do think more heavily used and heavily reviewed implementations are a good idea, but it is not like Booth was trumpeting this cause last year (or even earlier when it was mostly unpopular -- I remember getting a lot of push back from bitcoiners for talking about libbitcoin in 2023.
On that note, I find it interesting that Voskuil, the leader of the libbitcoin project doesn't feel the need to come out and badmouth developers and accuse them vaguely of conspiracy to control Bitcoin. I think we could all learn a bit from the way he has navigated this debate.
I think two things can be true. It does seem to me that Core was DEI/wokified but also that bip110 is a bad idea.
If I was somehow against the success of Bitcoin, I would probably try to play the both sides against each other (first trying to wokify the Core, then trying to convince the idealist BIP110 guys to rally against CSAM, and that it’s because Core was captured, then watch with popcorn in hand how the community fragments.
Good strat and all, but I really don't think humans need a genius nemesis having something against the success of their projects to stumble over themselves without an external nudge.
We're very well capable of getting in our own way regardless.
I missed that physics woo-woo post when you made it. It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always. I've been tossing around the idea of making a post about it to get thoughts from our local math proof nerds and lawyers.
I had the exact same thought too. I am fairly confident Jeff does appreciate the nuance. But even so, it doesn't protect you from your own blind spots.
Not saying I found one, I'm not versed enough along the same chain of thought.
Jeff's biggest issue may well be that no one else seems to be into the same rabbit hole deep enough to challenge his work.
your post idea sounds very interesting. I'm no logician, so I think I would find it quite educational.
Haha, maybe I spend some time on it, but I hardly trust myself to do the work perfectly. Proofs are hard.
Voskuil is keeping quiet here because https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Spam-Misnomer . He's been plenty loud at questioning Bitcoin Core's motives.
Thanks for that link.
I would be curious to read such cases (if a link or two is convenient). I haven't been tracking it for as long as some, but my impression is that Voskuil has refrained from insinuations of conspiracy.
I wouldn't call it "insinuations of conspiracy" either. I've had plenty of interesting conversations with him that all left me with a new perspective. He does accuse Bitcoin Core of gatekeeping both the consensus code and funding, but I think that is kind of understandable given his project and that he wants people to take it seriously.
I do dislike it when he narrates different choices in tradeoffs, especially legacy ones, as incompetence. No one is perfect though, and when he does one can just ignore it, because it won't be a thing for more than a few hours.
I think that Jeff is right about the mechanic. I just think he's wrong about the players in this case.
It's pretty much all bullshit.
The first principles here are what most people miss & how I think Jeff is approaching this. BIP110 represents a new leap forward in Bitcoin decentralization.
Whether you agree with him or not, it's useful to hear thoughtful arguments from different corners of Bitcoin.