odinn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike, tone it down, please, when I read your stuff it's like you are
drinking too much Red bull or something.
On 07/29/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It was _well_ .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish
> to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain
> to keep it verifyable on small devices.
>
>
> No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later.
> "Small devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have
> been any such understanding.
>
> The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words:
>
> "At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network
> grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
> specialists with server farms of specialized hardware."
>
> That is from 2008:
>
>
> http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-
75.16-83.14
>
>
> Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos
> and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the
> system for "small devices".
>
> I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you
> have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me
> about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about.
> It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over
> the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision
> of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a
> shared goal.
>
> If Satoshi had said from the start,
>
> "Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited
> and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I
> picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular."
>
> ... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said,
> huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is
> intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.
>
>
> Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out
> wrong.
>
>
> I just did claim otherwise and no, I am not wrong at all.
>
> (Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument
> for SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from
> your and Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining
> ecosystem:
>
>
> Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining
> ecosystem? What does that even mean? Was it not I who wrote this
> blog post?
>
>
> http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hang
ing-fruit/
>
> Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend
> towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself,
> or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be
> used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the
> white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj
> before he left!
>
>
> Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant
> to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an
> alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to
> always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by
> "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone
> has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that
> everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then
> when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity,
> you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say
> "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices,
> that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus
> rules for that reason".
>
> But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting
> a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people.
> Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products
> only for today's tiny user base.
>
>
> My list of "things a full node is useful for" wasn't ordered by
> importance, by the way.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuejTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CKigH+gJpevuZ/mbCy9cjhLvX6VT/
NBQjU82EPDkMkASqoQOekIBOrgODBcN8HsR1xnPHYZYh9HmMaQ/kZDZI3EUP76CU
s1vvL0AQC11b0aai+z1K5XU6xK+HxRewujBj9lKtH/JuRUHoKUrRIn/5KxT6Nb5+
OXCpoXKnynfu7T57RrVBOKCPW0Oo7jay9owjDzy+J/ATfqqPDB++7nDbPPVzyrNs
6TlHaC/CxRcq832lwBe1KwaX4A7KFiqHwWoK5/R7Ccyj5X21nHXnDOuXLqwOfGtH
1aARAQ6dqHor5Kw9/Y7yAdoNnrK3XYR80Qdr6I77f3X2B40GdnBiBOSUpoQNAB0=
=nRef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike, tone it down, please, when I read your stuff it's like you are
drinking too much Red bull or something.
On 07/29/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It was _well_ .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish
> to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain
> to keep it verifyable on small devices.
>
>
> No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later.
> "Small devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have
> been any such understanding.
>
> The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words:
>
> "At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network
> grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
> specialists with server farms of specialized hardware."
>
> That is from 2008:
>
>
> http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-
75.16-83.14
>
>
> Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos
> and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the
> system for "small devices".
>
> I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you
> have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me
> about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about.
> It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over
> the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision
> of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a
> shared goal.
>
> If Satoshi had said from the start,
>
> "Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited
> and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I
> picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular."
>
> ... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said,
> huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is
> intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.
>
>
> Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out
> wrong.
>
>
> I just did claim otherwise and no, I am not wrong at all.
>
> (Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument
> for SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from
> your and Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining
> ecosystem:
>
>
> Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining
> ecosystem? What does that even mean? Was it not I who wrote this
> blog post?
>
>
> http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hang
ing-fruit/
>
> Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend
> towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself,
> or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be
> used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the
> white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj
> before he left!
>
>
> Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant
> to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an
> alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to
> always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by
> "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone
> has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that
> everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then
> when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity,
> you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say
> "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices,
> that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus
> rules for that reason".
>
> But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting
> a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people.
> Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products
> only for today's tiny user base.
>
>
> My list of "things a full node is useful for" wasn't ordered by
> importance, by the way.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuejTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CKigH+gJpevuZ/mbCy9cjhLvX6VT/
NBQjU82EPDkMkASqoQOekIBOrgODBcN8HsR1xnPHYZYh9HmMaQ/kZDZI3EUP76CU
s1vvL0AQC11b0aai+z1K5XU6xK+HxRewujBj9lKtH/JuRUHoKUrRIn/5KxT6Nb5+
OXCpoXKnynfu7T57RrVBOKCPW0Oo7jay9owjDzy+J/ATfqqPDB++7nDbPPVzyrNs
6TlHaC/CxRcq832lwBe1KwaX4A7KFiqHwWoK5/R7Ccyj5X21nHXnDOuXLqwOfGtH
1aARAQ6dqHor5Kw9/Y7yAdoNnrK3XYR80Qdr6I77f3X2B40GdnBiBOSUpoQNAB0=
=nRef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----