Re: So it looks like Cobra is planning on passing on the Bitcoin.org domain
Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good: If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it. Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.
Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin. If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money. You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money. And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory: It’s a financial attack on you, personally! Of course, you should be angry about that.
Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin. If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money. You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money. And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory: It’s a financial attack on you, personally! Of course, you should be angry about that.
I doubt that bitcoiners are engaging in as much of a battle as is being ascribed to it.
Sure bitcoiners might be resentful about some of the shitcoins, but ultimately, many are allowed to do whatever they want with a kind of theory that they are likely to die anyhow.. Ultimately, king daddy does not need to prove itself because value will gravitate and flow into it, even if it might take 50 years or longer to play out.
I am full in Monero, it is not a clone of bitcoin it stands on its own technology and has its own name. That is an honourable project.
You didn't go there.
Can't help ur lil selfie, can you Globb0.
The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it.
Good point, Cøbra. The default that bitcoin is not broken, so if it does not change, then it is not a bad place to be. If your proposal is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then I suppose bitcoin just will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.
That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible.
Wrong presumption.
Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success. That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin. Maybe they have to build second layer, but bitcoin is not broken, even if it stays the same forever and ever from here on out.
Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved.
Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed. We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that. do you have any examples in which some critical bug was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it is found. Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal.. so yeah, those kinds of bugs are likely to be resolved. At least, that is my tentative ongoing presumption.
But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.
That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time. I was there and I followed a lot of it. So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit. And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.
Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself.
The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it.
Good point about the never changing, Cøbra, even though you seemed to have meant it as a negative, when in fact the never changing would be a positive... a feature and not a bug, in bitcoin.
Accordingly, the default in bitcoin is that it is not broken, and in that regard, satoshi made a powerful thing. Don't be fucking with it. Sure there have been some changes along the way, but those changes in bitcoin have come through overwhelming consensus... which mean that the changes are bitcoin.
In other words, if bitcoin does not change and it calcifies right here in its current state, then it is not a bad place to be.
If your proposal (or the proposal of anyone else) is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then bitcoin is just not going to change. It will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be. Right?
That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible.
Wrong presumption. Bitcoin is not a failure. Why u so negative?
Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success. That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin as it is and as they expect it to be. Maybe they have to build various second layer solutions, but bitcoin is not broken, currently, and we cannot just presume away that bitcoin is going to become broken.. or that some change has to go through immediately or else bitcoin is going to become broken.. blah blah blah.. even if bitcoin stays the same forever and ever from here on out like you postulate, you and I reach a different conclusion about whether bitcoin is successful or a failure.
Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved.
Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed. We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that. No? do you have any examples in which some critical bug or needed change was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it was found. Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal because more difficult to get a roll back and the blockchain does not tend to stop, right?.. so yeah, those kinds of BIG bugs are likely to be resolved... and if they are found in a kind of late state, then they are going to have more complications.. for sure.. but at least my tentative ongoing presumption would be that there would be efforts to try to resolve bugs or nip bugs in the bud to the extent that they are identified.. maybe another reason to be really conservative with the introduction of any new code, too.
But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.
That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time. I was there and I followed a lot of it. So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit. And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.
Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself.