pull down to refresh
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.
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.
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.