reply on: Hi, this is Paul Sztorc

pull down to refresh

234 sats \ 4 replies \ @real_paul_sztorc OP 18 Jul \ parent \ on: Hi, this is Paul Sztorc - AMA AMA

For eCash to succeed, BTC must fail.

Now -- I hope that BTC does NOT fail. I hope I am wrong about (what I call) the "Derangement" of Bitcoin -- https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/derangements/

Unfortunately, I have a history of being right -- often years before other Bitcoiners.

Anyway, how does BTC fail?

Primarily, BTC fails if we stop being honest about it. Lightning (and ARK) have been doing a great job -- the more BTC talks about LN, the more likely BTC dies.

The more time BTC spends talking about Luke's nonsense, the more likely BTC dies.

The fewer soft forks BTC does -- more likely BTC dies.

How would we fire Bitcoin Core, if we wanted to? How would we fire the CEO of FoundryUSA? -- If these questions are confusing, or cannot be answered -- then BTC is likely to die. (Accountability is a necessary part of survival.)

eCash could still fail, even if BTC fails.

I hope that -- in that scenario (ie, if BTC fails, and then we try eCash) -- we will at least learn. It would be like a science experiment. Like a SpaceX rocket launch -- we could figure out why it failed , and what to try next.

112 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 18 Jul

the more BTC talks about LN, the more likely BTC dies.

Can you expand on this?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @real_paul_sztorc OP 18 Jul

Lightning is a mirage -- there isn't actually any water there

I'm trying to help out the caravan -- and keep us on the straight and narrow. If you follow me, we might not die.

But Lightning compels people to lie. They are true believers, they really think the oasis is over there.

So it is a very serious difference of opinion. But I have published all kinds of technical critique of LN , and at TabConf last year I did a debate against the entire room -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhJoJPf76Pw -- Tadge Dryja joined me on stage for 10 minutes at the end. There was very little pushback against my core thesis.

That is basically as good as it could possibly get, for us LN-skeptics.

Even Bitcoin's recent shift to ARK, is, in some sense, an admission that LN has to be radically rethought, in order to work. And that the LN cult will just transmorph itself rather than honestly face its flaws.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 18 Jul

The fewer soft forks BTC does -- the more likely BTC dies.

My impression is that most bitcoiners think BTC requires "just a few more soft forks" and then it will be good to ossify.

Do you think that continual soft forking is a necessary?

112 sats \ 0 replies \ @real_paul_sztorc OP 18 Jul

I don't see it in those terms.

Instead, this is what I see:

All modern soft forks are literally harmless. They are opt-in, ignorable, and reversible.
It is irrational for plebs to "discuss" soft forks (eg on Twitter), unless they also want to discuss random other pull requests to Core that are not soft forks.

If you had asked me years ago, I would have said Bip300 is all you need! But then OP Vault came out -- and I kind of like it.

And then OP CAT -- it was in the original version of Bitcoin.

Then the big debate about quantum -- we could give people QR sig options, if they want them.

The relevant issue is: is this a smart idea? Can we give a few people something they want -- without it affecting the people who do not want it.

In general it is hard to predict which new soft forks will be invented, and which new problems Bitcoin might face.

So the bigger issue is: why is everyone acting so badly for such irrational reasons? And -- how irrational will be become? Who would have thought it would just be luke ending up yelling total nonsense about child abuse? What's next?