0 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneroshill OP 1 May 2023 \ on: How not to be a noob - geohot bitcoin
IDK where to post this but I thought you guys would get a kick out of it
good ideas should speak for themselves. the ideas of bitcoin minimalism can only exist behind walls of powermods, trust graphs, and downvotes.
here is the rest of my bitcoin, it's not enough for me to place a limit order.
I think you are using the wrong link there. I'm going to assume you meant the truthcoin.org guy and not satoshi
This contains valid critiques of LN, however the butthurtedness of an antagonist coder complaining of not feeling herd enough is not constructive
The truthcoin guy is actually a bitcoin maxi and dev, and he spoke out against the cocksize increase: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/against-the-hard-fork/
His whole angle (which I disagree with) is that both increasing the block size sucks and also LN sucks. He shills his own "sidechains" idea (BIP300/BIP301). I don't know if I would call him an altcoiner, but he does seem to support adding many features from altcoins into bitcoin through soft forks.
The ability of anyone to easily download and verify the entire blockchain is a necessity.
First of all, it is not a necessity, just use SPV.
Secondly, you can download and verify the blockchain without having the whole thing on your hard drive at once. Just keep a running tally of who owns how many bitcoins and store the hashes of the blocks you download. This is basically what is done in light wallets of cryptocurrencies like monero that can't implement bitcoin's SPV.
Basically, the clients can just store the hashes of blocks after they're done verifying. That is sufficient to prevent miners from pulling the wool over their eyes with fake transactions. This is one of the central ideas behind SPV.
To depend on miners to be the only ones vested enough to maintain the entire blockchain is to misplace trust.
It does not matter as nodes that do not mine cannot resist a miner takeover. The only nodes that matter are mining nodes. If there is enough miner collusion to orchestrate a 51% attack, that is sufficient to double spend regardless of what the non-mining nodes do.
There is no separation of powers in bitcoin. The mining nodes have all the power and the non-mining nodes have none. This is the sybil-resistant mechanism
See that satoshi quote I linked. Very few people need to actually download the whole blockchain (miners and large businesses accepting many transactions). The rest can verify without storing it.
There's a fundamental problem with the cocksize wars, it was premature. If the average storage cost goes down and the average drive size goes up faster than the size of the blockchain, then it makes sense to increase the cocksize (if and only if there is a widespread consensus for such a change). We've actually seen a reduction in the rate of increase of the average drive size on an inexpensive computer due to the switch from hard drives to SSDs.
I completely agree. I think the real problem of the cocksize war was that it basically forked the community and kicked out the half of the community that was the most accepting of change. So now there is really no hope of making a future cocksize change because everyone that stayed with BTC is implicitly anti-fork.
With lightning, the need for a larger cocksize is delayed potentially indefinitely.
Hell no. Bitcoin will need both lightning and a larger cocksize to scale. Lightning does not remove the need for a cocksize increase, in fact it may actually make it worse: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/
Those dreaming of a larger cocksize simply don't understand the larger system under which bitcoin needs to fit into, and these design decisions are necessary to keep it decentralized.
No actually, blocksize has almost nothing to do with decentralization. It may make it more difficult for individuals to run their own nodes, but the effect of the number of network nodes on decentralization has diminishing returns. What really matters is the distribution of hash-power. The large ASIC mining companies and pools can easily afford the storage space (as it's a fraction of the cost of their hardware), and this is basically what satoshi intended: for only miners to run full nodes and for everyone else to use SPV: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/287/
Long story short, the market is always right and this is what bitcoin was designed to take advantage of.
I dunno, the market is full of idiots ATM. Is the market right about dogecoin or shiba inu or etherium or ripple?
We don't need luck. Monero will continue to succeed as long as monero users are diligent, open-minded and altruistic where bitcoin users are lazy, close-minded and greedy.
I think what you would end up seeing in reality is that the second-biggest coin on the market, (say, litecoin or something similar to bitcoin that has a significant market share) would take over the market segment while bitcoiners are still trying to figure out how to sync the network over massive interplanetary latency.
This would cause litecoin (or whatever other cryptocurrency) to piss off a lot of earthlings because the latency would get higher for them as 51% of blocks are mined on mars. Eventually litecoin (or whatever) would be as unusable on earth as bitcoin is unusable on mars.
I also say litecoin because the BTC<->LTC atomic swap is one of the oldest and most well established, using the HTLC method, and like bitcoin they are ASIC mined.
This is pitiful. None of those are unique properties. These are not fundamental, technical properties of bitcoin. None of these features make bitcoin more useful to martians than a new cryptocurrency which is forked from genesis.
It is trivial to create a cryptocurrency that has all of those properties by simply starting a new genesis block with an old timestamp and spending a ton of PoW to stack blocks with old timestamps on it. Boom, you have something that is indistinguishable from "old" cryptocurrency like bitcoin.
Secondly, bitcoin's market cap is not some feature of bitcoin, it is merely dependent on the price that people trade bitcoin. You have come full circle in explaining why bitcoin is valuable: "it is valuable because it is valuable".
Bitcoin's scarcity will kill it due to selfish mining unless miners can scoop up enough fees after block reward dies out. There is no reason to have a hard cap on the supply as it endangers the network for the greed of individual bagholders like you. When bitcoin collapses, just remember that I told you so. Monero's tail emission effect on inflation is nearly identical, the inflation tends asymptotically to zero. All the non-stupid bitcoiners know this, they just can't implement it though hard fork because the bitcoin community is full of idiots like you: https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/1552610792998060033
Also, the idea that monero's supply is not as verifiable as bitcoin's supply is simply a lie. If we could not verify monero's supply, then we would not be able to prevent double-spends in the first place: there would be no currency. We have key-images and bulletproofs. It is mathematically verifiable. This is merely a pea-brained take that shows that you are more concerned with the inflation of your bags above all else: the first thing that comes to your mind is the "verafiability of the supply" rather than the security and usabiliy of the network through its ability to prevent double spends.
A sidechain is just another cryptocurrency with more bloat to ensure that it enriches bitcoiners instead. At this point, bitcoiners are desperate to get anyone to use bitcoin that they are willing to completely abandon every feature of bitcoin besides the limited supply. Hmm, I wonder why?
Chaumian cash is custodial. Even so, If chaumian cash is implemented, this will almost completely destroy bitcoin's use-case as cash, because you can just use it without bitcoin (e.g. gold, USD, etc). I would argue that the only reason that bitcoin exists is because banks decided not to implement chaum's e-cash.