48
49

Blockstream: Statists Masquerading as Cypherpunks. (self.btc)

BTC_number_1_fan が 投稿

I don't know how a company of "cypherpunks" can unironically support litigation against opponents, software patents, censorship, ddos attacks, taking money from a company like AXA, and asking the SEC to regulate which client is "the real bitcoin".

comment source: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scvl5

全 45 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ChairmanOfBitcoin 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

how a company of "cypherpunks" can unironically support

$76,000,000 goes a long way towards betraying their ideals.

[–]drwasho 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

They were like that before they received funding.

[–]thcymos 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's gotten considerably worse since 2014. Many of them have either dug in their heels or even done a complete 180 on certain issues. Theymos in particular might very well have been a different person in 2010, and I mean that literally. Those connected with Blockstream have turned "Core" into a religion of sorts, now unwilling to compromise on anything with anyone outside of their cult (right up Luke's alley).

Cue Greg showing up with his shtick, "Core is 100 developers, not a monolithic entity who controls Bitcoin!! BTW, BU is an altcoin, please leave Bitcoin if you're against Core". I think the more intelligent Core developers are mostly staying quiet, not rudely demeaning everything BU does nor endlessly defending Core in an arrogant fashion. They know there's a real chance that at some point, Core will not be the primary implementation of Bitcoin.

[–]Hernzzzz -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please explain.

[–]combatopera 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

been wondering this since the blockstream takeover: what's a cypherpunk and why should i care?

[–]JohnBlocke 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

[–]d4d5c4e5 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The impression that I've picked up over the years listening to people with first-hand involvement is that cypherpunk simply refers to participation in the mailing list, which was mainly just an ideological exercise, and the movement itself accomplished approximately zero actual real-world accomplishments, other than coopting credit for Bitcoin now after-the-fact and claiming PGP maybe sorta kinda has some peripheral connection to them.

[–]seweso 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cypherpunks are activists who advocate the widespread use of strong cryptography (writing in code) as a route to progressive change.

They kinda miss the widespread part. Cheap and fast are a great way to promote change. Even if you think financial privacy and security (deflation) is worth very high fees, that doesn't mean it's a good way to promote actual usage. I like to take letsencrypt.org as a good example of this. Privacy has always been important, but sometimes you really do need easy & fast.

[–]djpnewton 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

For a start blockstream has a patent pledge endorsed by the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression) so there goes one of your unsubstantiated claims

As for the linked claim that G Maxwell threatened to sue, IIRC his words were something like "your behavior makes you susceptible to being sued, but thats not my style"

Repeating unsubstantiated claims as gospel is kinda scummy. Roger Ver is on record saying that he does not buy into all the conspiracy stuff too, seems odd that a sub he controls is full of it

[–]Richy_T 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Roger Ver is on record saying that he does not buy into all the conspiracy stuff too, seems odd that a sub he controls is full of it

Perhaps he mods and administers it rather than controls it.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[–]todu 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Repeating unsubstantiated claims as gospel is kinda scummy. Roger Ver is on record saying that he does not buy into all the conspiracy stuff too, seems odd that a sub he controls is full of it

I know it must feel confusing when you're not used having it, to see a subreddit that is full of free speech. That concept includes allowing other opinions than your own. You should look it up. People have fought IRL wars to get it, so it's worth a google.

[–]djpnewton -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

i get free speech, I am using it to point out unsubstantiated politically based mudslinging.

Just because you can say something does not mean you should

[–]todu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i get free speech, I am using it to point out unsubstantiated politically based mudslinging.

So you like free speech when you use it but you don't like free speech when your political opponents are using it? You may think that you understand free speech but you clearly don't.

[–]awemany 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

As for the linked claim that G Maxwell threatened to sue, IIRC his words were something like "your behavior makes you susceptible to being sued, but thats not my style"

Maybe /u/todu can chime in here?

[–]todu 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gregory Maxwell is like a politician who says two contradicting things, and then his supporters choose whichever of the two statements to quote depending on what they want to be true at the moment. Gregory said both things. At first he said that he would sue me and then when I said that I would not shut up just because he threatens to sue, he said things that could be interpreted as if he never intended to sue me at all.

But a threat is a threat even if you take it back within a few minutes after seeing that the threat had the opposite of the intended effect.

Anyone can read the full series of events with more detail in this Reddit post that I made:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/55hm5i/gregory_maxwell_cofounder_of_blockstream/

[–]veintiuno 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why do you constantly come to BlockStream's defense, why not let them defend themselves? How does your business, Netki, benefit from arbitrary transaction congestion? Please disclosed because its puzzling: based on website traffic stats, network congestion can't be helping your wallet business - 2 second avg site visit time, 3000 total site visits in last 6 months and declining numbers.

[–]sgeisler 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe he is just a nice person and doesn't want other people to get harmed based on misinformation.

Even the link in the OP isn't providing any evidence, just some people talking about how evil certain people are, but without any sources to check facts. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Before this is provided everyone should take these threads with a grain of salt.

[–]djpnewton 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not with Netki

[–]todu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has a wallet business? Maybe he hopes to sell his business to Blockstream by supporting Blockstream publicly. You know like Greenaddress already have.

[–]bitcoinchamp 1ポイント2ポイント  (23子コメント)

Is it possible for BU, Segwit and lightning to all be combined?

[–]bitusher -2ポイント-1ポイント  (22子コメント)

Sure, but the folks over at BU would rather block progress because this hasn't really been about capacity as we can clearly see but control over the network. It would be easy for them to agree to run/include segwit than proceed to try to grow support for a BU HF. If they don't like the segwit SF , they can always restructure it when the HF occurs.

[–]steb2k 6ポイント7ポイント  (16子コメント)

Let's say BU overtakes core and becomes the dominant client. How is that a power grab to control the network? It literally proves the concept that no one is in control, the market decides the correct approach, and you're likely to be replaced if you don't follow the market wishes.

[–]bitusher -4ポイント-3ポイント  (15子コメント)

How is that a power grab to control the network?

The miners work for the users.

The miners are a small but important part of the market and if they fork the chain without a supermajority of the users behind them than this could be considered a 51% attack . If they fork the chain with the consent of a supermajority of the community than this is fine. It is also fine if a minority of the hashpower wants to fork the chain because they disagree with the majority.

[–]steb2k 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

If the miners fork without a supermajority of the users behind them, then their blocks will be rejected by those users. The BU model relies on both full nodes and miners to agree.

but that's not the question - how is any of that related to gaining control of the network for "the folks over at BU"?

[–]bitusher -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

If the miners fork without a supermajority of the users behind them, then their blocks will be rejected by those users. The BU model relies on both full nodes and miners to agree.

This assumes that everyone runs BU nodes, when there are many different implementations in use. I am describing an unlikely scenario that BU hash rate reaches 75% and activation is triggered by the miners and many nodes still run other implementations.

how is any of that related to gaining control of the network for "the folks over at BU"?

The principle thrust and motivation of BU was rapidly increasing capacity through a different consensus mechanism. I understand there are some very nuanced disagreements with segwit but these are exaggerated and can be rectified when you hardfork if they are indeed real. To most of us it is hypocritical to constantly cry wolf that blocks are completely full (they aren't) and that we need more capacity a year ago , while simultaneously blocking a capacity increase which almost doubles the blocksize for individual users.

Adding segwit to BU doesn't mean you have to stop the campaign to increase capacity or get people to adopt BU consensus method. I'm completely ok, if you BU doesn't want to use segwit, It is their right, but also tells the rest of the community what their primary focus is, and it isn't increasing capacity right away.

[–]Richy_T 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

BU doesn't have an activation.

[–]bitusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I understand that it is advertised as already activated and the argument of emergent consensus. Theory is one thing , practice is another. According to ViaBTC it does at a threshold of 75%.

[–]Richy_T 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I suggest reading about how BU is implemented. To my understanding, there is no activation at all, it simply is implemented as part of the software. If you set it to accept 2MB blocks, it accepts 2MB blocks. Miners may choose to mine blocks of whatever size they choose at whatever time they like, they just have to judge whether that block will be orphaned. If ViaBTC has chosen 75% adoption, that is entirely a ViaBTC decision.

Decent article here:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/viabtc-might-block-segwit-calls-1mb-blocks-network-suicide-moves-bitcoin-unlimited/

[–]tl121 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The principle thrust and motivation of BU was rapidly increasing capacity through a different consensus mechanism.

Changing parameters via a command file or GUI rather than editing source code and recompiling. Same mechanism.

[–]bitusher -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a very large difference when the network allows the consensus rules to be changed with 51% vote rather than a supermajority of users - 95% + .

[–]steb2k 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am describing an unlikely scenario that BU hash rate reaches 75% and activation is triggered by the miners and many nodes still run other implementations.

It all depends on the node operators. You've got 25% that will reject a larger block. you've also got individual node settings that may or may not reject those blocks. You've got the orphan risk of a larger block.

If a larger block is generated, and it gets accepted by nodes, it can still be rejected if the other side of the chain grows longer.

There are pro's. There are con's. On both sides. The real question is, why cant we meet in the middle and work through it together?

The principle thrust and motivation of BU was rapidly increasing capacity through a different consensus mechanism.

I'll repeat the question a third time - how is that a power grab for "the folks at BU", not the consensus/power being distributed back to the market?

To most of us it is hypocritical to constantly cry wolf that blocks are completely full (they aren't) and that we need more capacity a year ago , while simultaneously blocking a capacity increase which almost doubles the blocksize for individual users.

Disliking segwit is a different issue to raising transaction capacity, thats why you can support one and not the other. Just like you can not want a blocksize increase, but "increase the blocksize" by accepting segwit.

[–]bitusher -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

The real question is, why cant we meet in the middle and work through it together?

This is what segwit does. The compromise was adding an effective 1.8- 2MB of capacity that wasn't originally included. Core has many on the chain scaling /capacity improvements after like MAST and Schnorr signature aggregation. What you are asking for is even more of a compromise at tradeoffs we don't want to risk.

I'll repeat the question a third time - how is that a power grab for "the folks at BU", not the consensus/power being distributed back to the market?

I'm speaking about a specific(and unlikely) scenario where 75% of miners start mining BU and activate the HF and where they do not have a majority of users behind them. If BU HFs at 95% support and has a majority of exchanges, merchants, users behind it than there isn't a problem. I still won't use that version of bitcoin and sell all my coins and rebuy back on the other chain but won't consider this an attack of any sort. Its just the market deciding BU is a better way forward as you put it.

Disliking segwit is a different issue to raising transaction capacity, thats why you can support one and not the other.

Yes, but there are priorities people can place on things. You can both prefer segwit as a HF and simultaneously accept it as a SF because your main motivation is increasing capacity and because you know that any problems you have with segwit as a SF can be fixed when a HF occurs later.

[–]steb2k 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Segwit has a small capacity element - and if that was all it was, I would probably agree with you. But it isn't. It is several different things all rolled up into one, and a lot of those things are very contentious (soft fork rollout, discounts, etc etc)

Yes, but there are priorities people can place on things. You can both prefer segwit as a HF and simultaneously accept it as a SF because your main motivation is increasing capacity and because you know that any problems you have with segwit as a SF can be fixed when a HF occurs later.

Unfortunately, thats not true. once the soft fork is activated, all SF segwit transactions will be in the blockchain forever, and will need to be handled forever (because they are spendable by anyone otherwise). A HF segwit most likely will not be compatible. Then you've got another transaction type to code for, additional technical debt.

(I'm just going to leave the 2nd point. You're just repeating the same things over and over, they aren't connected to the question, so i'm giving up!)

[–]mistaik -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

The miners work for the users.

Thought they worked for money, in accordance with their rational self-interest? Sorta thought that was the beauty of Bitcoin -- that no matter what, no matter the motivation of the actors or their moral underpinning, a rational (profit-motivated) miners' self-interest coincides with the users'. Making 51% attacks unlikely for the simple reason of being unprofitable. Not so, apparently. :(

[–]bitusher 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thought they worked for money, in accordance with their rational self-interest?

Just like an employee works for money. What matters is who pays the money and its the users buying bitcoin. They are the boss like any other business. The users can fire the miners at will and the miners have no recourse. The miners are actually in a very precarious position and hold little power. The most powerful people in our ecosystem are large exchanges and very large investors not miners or devs (although many core devs are also large investors )

[–]Richy_T 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

With threats of PoW change, Core have made it clear who controls the money flow. This makes it imperative for miners to diversify the software base if they don't want to be lead by the nose.

[–]bitusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

PoW change isn't needed if a majority of the investors support the alternative as miners will follow the money. Miners diversifying software doesn't help at all if most of the users won't buy/use their coin on a recurring basis. Economic Users are ultimately in control where the vote of each user is weighted based upon their financial investment or amount of bitcoins.

[–]mistaik 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just like an employee works for money. What matters is who pays the money and its the users buying bitcoin

No. The miner's main source of income is Bitcoin's block reward, 12.5 BTC for each block solved. Some users may chose not to buy those coins, though this doesn't mean Miners work for them. No more than you work for the bodega owner who won't take your filthy fiat.

The users can fire the miners

In the same sense as the bodega owner can fire you, sure.

The miners are actually in a very precarious position and hold little power.

But not for the reason you think they are. They'd be shit out of luck if Lightning takes hold. It's OK tho, mining is an obsolescence-driven business -- you recoup your investment in a half a year, upgrade your gear & go on. Or not.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the fact that they work for money & not for the "users." Did you even read my post?

[–]lifeboatz 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

What a bunch of hogwash.

BU is about trying to implement change in the right way. Not some kludge. Not some pork project to toss in as much shit into a "soft" fork because somehow that's safer.

The benefits of segwit can be (and have been) coded in a way that is cleaner, easier to support, and less risky.

[–]bitusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Segwit would be implemented in almost the exact same way as a HF as a SF, but let me go along with your false narrative for a moment-- What you are telling me is "clean code" takes priority over capacity increases. Fine, thanks for clarifying that.

[–]lifeboatz 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

What you are telling me is that you believe that capacity increases can't happen with clean code. Fine, thanks for clarifying that.

[–]bitusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

What you are telling me is that you believe that capacity increases can't happen with clean code. Fine, thanks for clarifying that.

Nope, I'm suggesting that Segwit is clean and well tested. I'm also suggesting that delaying a capacity increase reflects that this isn't your main motivation as arguments against segwit as a SF thus far have been very petty or dishonest.

[–]lifeboatz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have made the wild-ass, unsubstantiated claim that the developers and supporters of BU "would rather block progress because this hasn't really been about capacity".

Segwit is implemented as a kludge and is not well tested.

I have been advocating a capacity increase since 2011. Pretty hard to say that it's not about capacity. Segwit is an attempt to cobble something together to buy time (too little, too crappy, too late), which puts us in the same situation that we were in 12 months prior to its implementation, which is a situation of people BEGGING for a capacity increase. And it'll probably take a year to get to that point. That's not a solution.

[–]Kay0r 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Statists?
BTC is stateless.
Perhaps "Crooks masquerading as chyperphunks" sounds better.

[–]Richy_T 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Authoritarian" might be more appropriate than "Statist" in this case.