so I read the guy's AMA and realize I'm a bit out of the loop: not only is he an LN skeptic, he considers it an existential threat, and is doing a deliberate hardfork that, among other shenanigans, will zero mining difficulty on the starting block... and the bottom line of his justification for it is culture and politics?
Thanks for the airdrop @real_paul_sztorc but can I please buy some of what you smoked? I'll pay double, because, you know, airdrop.
if you wonder why I'm derisive of the justification: it is literally impossible to fork out of politics... even if the unwanted culture doesn't hop on your hype from the first forked block, it's just culture, and will show up sooner or later, like spam, scams, and superfluid helium.
I'm still not reading it. We've had his entire narrative popping up over and over and over again for 12 years or so. It's great that in a month from now we can just permanently mute anyone mentioning it for reasons of shitcoining.
"who's slop is it, anyway?"
joking aside, I think the one thing you should keep in mind is that he mentioned he still doesn't want a minority fork to win, and is doing this to encourage adoption of some new soft-forking protocol. I've not understood the technical details to my satisfaction yet, although that alone is reason enough to not mute him quite so hastily as "yet another shitcoiner".
Is doing what? Redistributing patoshi-marked coin to insiders? In my book, the moment you say "this is a fork, so everyone gets to have assets here, except
xyz utxos, these go to my friends"... then you're a thieving shitcoiner. It also sets a precedent on "utxo recovery" a la CSW so that entire chain is likely to be fully unusable as bearer instrument. If it ever "beats Bitcoin" in terms of staying power, every shitcoiner that does go there is supporting theft.So, a decade+ of Paul pitching "BIP-300 solves everything", including things that do not need solving, culminating in a hardfork with redistribution to insiders... is good enough reason for me personally to not want to hear anything about it once it's done. Fork = fuck off.
its not stealing satoshi's coins, its giving satoshi and everyone else already on bitcoin, coins on a new network with better capabilities
I think the messaging could be a bit clearer on the technicalities of how it's being done; obviously diehard maximalists will oppose a fork involving anything other than a pure airdrop, although it is precisely this confidence in a simple position that makes that position drown out all the nuanced ones...
how exactly does the proposed hardfork both (1) copy everyone's coins, (2) compensate developers and investors by diluting the extranonce 2009 sequence, and (3) minimize code departure from existing Bitcoin ? feel free to point me at the source code if there is no detailed written explanation yet.
copy paste......?????
how did BCH do it or anyone else do it?
it's a public blockhain..... anyone can ??????
the question is so basic to how this network works i don't even know what to say , i'm dumb struck
diluting would imply * adding *or * increasing * bitcoin supply. This phrasing is loaded.
ecash will be Giving...GIVING... read that word out loud...ecash coins TO Satoshi ON the eCash network
this betrays real ignorance about the project, but you asked in good faith i hope
CUSF Core Utouched Soft Fork is an enforcer that allows inheriting Core ...untouched.
Look at that ! it's in the name !
so any future "improvements" core makes, ecash will get, plus many more valuable features through sidechains, such as vaults or almost any other applicable or experimental technology in computer science, including filecoin/ipfs/Prediction market oracles/zk/PQ/+.
If the user market finds these useful, they get ack'd and seamlessly integrated
NOT IF SOME CONCLAVE OF MOMS-BASEMENT DWELLERS CHOOSE IT ON CORE
btw you can also ask these of the Atreides LLM on ecash.com, its pretty good on primers about the technology.
and paul has recently put together a technical brief about the fork itself
https://github.com/ecash-com/fast-facts
and on satoshis coins
https://github.com/ecash-com/the-satoshi-coins
thank you; the reply would've been good enough with just those links, and would have saved you time, as well!
yes sir
adlai sir
"just explain ten years of the project and everything that is already explained on ecash.com"
no, do your own homework
if you don't know the answer to these things that have been discussed in public and easily available, then at most you should be neutral
the instinctive reaction by modern bitcoiners to dismiss anything not bitcoin is an evolutionary dead end
have you actually read my comment in context of the parent comments?
I'm specifically asking about one aspect of the hardfork, that was not explained on the website; and I even said "feel free to point me at the source code", so your "do your own homework" tone is a little insulting... not responding is cheaper than being a cunt.
finally, please donn't be so quick to write me off as yet another maximalist, because I'm really not... and in general, I recommend that you not be so eager to alienate people, especially in the current sociopolitical climate.
????????????
lol WHAT could this mean.....lollolollol
fine... i will reply with more precise pointers
Please do not interpret my responding to your comment rather than zapping it as disagreement with your actual point [calling out confiscation]; however I wish people had slightly better tolerance for discussions of unaligned behavior, because community cohesion is not improved by the slippery slope from "Not only do I discourage your idea, but I consider it unethical, because ..." to "you're a thieving shitcoin grifter who deserves to get mogged, ratioed, and ostracized by any means that I happen to consider ethical"
Should I even bother figuring out what "patoshi" means?
Patience is finite. You yourself have been around for a longer time and I'm sure you've seen plenty of the drivechain discussions taking place. For me at least, at some point it starts to piss me off. In Paul's case, that point was reached years ago. So my apologies for not being helpful in this, but I guess this illustrates why I am not and should not be reading the AMA post.
Edit: "patoshi" is Sergio Lerner's fingerprinting of extranonce patterns to identify the #1 miner on early blocks. Whenever someone talks about "satoshi's coin", they include this, which is the majority of satoshi's alleged wealth.
being pissed off about technical differences without technical arguments for this is an irrational
I'm not pissed off about technical differences, that's not the right interpretation. What I'm pissed off about is hearing the same narrative over and over again, but every time it is applied to different problems. Magic bullet. Fixes everything.
But to me, if the goalposts of your "
xfixes this" keep moving wider and wider, then you haven't gamed out the downsides ofxvery well. There are always downsides. I don't think the problem is technical: it's a narrative issue.Tell you what, though. I'll concede that the original narrative of the importance of letting people build their own thing with a horizontal integration instead of a layered one gets a bit more merit if in the next weeks BIP-110 activates on my non-signaling node, because that would mean that truly poor designed changes can activate against common sense and the "axiom of resistance" is weakened. If there is nothing close to danger of that happening, i.e. the BIP-110 chaintip stays sub 30%, then the system, despite being a bit hierarchical and conservative due to layering, works as intended and is still pro-liberty.
If that liberty without drivechains is not enough for you then forking is the right thing to do. I'm happy for everyone to move on and close this chapter.
oh LORD. Made me chuckle
The remarkable thing is that compared to the BIP-110 guys, Sztorc can still come off as sane: https://x.com/i/status/2081788116000518640
Clearly his dealer is selling him cocaine, not fentanyl.
Fentanyl would not have caused caring this much about fringe risks.
Cocaine is an interesting theory, if you must blame the fork upon a chemical rather than social imbalance, although joking aside, I think this kind of decision can come from combining strong self-confidence[1] with certain asymmetries of expertise in a shrinking social network: as the headcount of people willing to engage critically with your ideas decreases, the risk increases of seeming to have "gone off the deep end" from the perspective of people who haven't been following along closely.
Paul Storcz won quite a lot of my respect after lots of reading and a few conversations, and the bits I've skimmed of his recent ideas haven't caused him to lose any of it; I'm worried more about what this effort says about community cohesion, if Bitcoin even had any of that in a general sense rather than within specific small subsets of the interested headcount.
let's face it, most people who aren't complete idiots end up getting unhealthy levels of self-confidence from seeing how much smarter they are than the typical idiot ↩
Which country has the purest cocaine? Colombia or Bolivia or Peru?
I'm asking for a 'friend'
It's a silly question; any country that has local manufacturing might allow tourists to visit farms and perform a supervised extraction [there are videos of this online]; however by the time any product is wholesaled into an international distribution chain, it really doesn't matter what arbitry political power turned a blind eye, and is more a question of comparing individual organizations within that distribution chain.
I'm really not much help beyond the above comment, and even that is just informed by online gossip rather than personal familiarity.
you. your post. the replies to it, are all evidence of the cultural risk:
non technical arguments, ignorance, or outright lying
in the hands of a few influential people they become political risk. Drivechains mitigate these risks, they do not get rid of them nor is that the intent.
lightning doesn't scale and if bitcoin doesn't scale, it dies or gets replaced by something that does. period.
States and competing chains have not really even begun attacking bitcoin yet. Retardation like Bip110 is just a small example of the kind of signal corruption and time waste states and bad actors are capable of were they to really try.
Drivechains ends THAT kind of politics.
Through crack smoking like yours and particularly the poisons introduced by peter todd and luke dashjr into the development history, bitcoin is already 42% sick.
42% of the total market and activity is outside bitcoin and at best your solutions try to pay LESS total fees to the miners securing it.
bitcoin is not perfect and has and will change
How should this change happen? The current process is broken, political and slow. DC allows market/user choice. Individual opt-in to changes that leave the base layer untouched, and on which you can stay if you want.
Politics will reappear, the point of BIP300/ecash is not to end or escape politics but to channel it constructively and in ways that those who risk most profit most or learn why they are wrong.
Current Bitcoin devs can get jobs doing something else if bitcoin fails. peter todd and others have stated this repeatedly, that if changes to bitcoin they don't like are made they will do something else. Please Go. Shooooo!
The difference is between the current centralized papist/cardinal enclave like decision making of core, BIPs on github, and influence brokers, like catholic Europe, versus the free enterprise of protestant America.
Is it not obvious that millions of currently silenced devs will be more rational, more creative, more ecosystem saving, than a few privileged-to-have-been-early OG's blowing white smoke out of their ass to approve or disapprove certain things on bitcoin?
After fork day, sell me your ecash, and we will cut off your head off with it. (metaphorically)