Results 1 ... 149 found in asciilifeform for 'f:rizzo'
pete_rizzo_: yes, i agree. full nodes define consensus, not miners
pete_rizzo_: one a minority*
pete_rizzo_: because a version of bitcoin in which it was possible for the majority to enforce some unwanted rules on a majority was bad, and risked funamentally compromising what made the bitcoin asset unique
pete_rizzo_: right, i understand on a high level how the soft forking rules work and why the core developers like using soft forks. their argument is that this (doesn't fork anyone off the chain) and gives everyone time to upgrade. BUT they still don't seem to acknowledge that what you're doing (ignoring this) is possible or desirable
pete_rizzo_: to the extent that a non-technical person could be i suppose
pete_rizzo_: so the question then, would be, how to the other parts of the network -- node, mining, wallet -- interact with each, and is it even meaningfully different
pete_rizzo_: but that does mean a majority of people are still enforcing rules (Core) that some minority (TRB) is not
pete_rizzo_: what do you mean by that? i don't think TRB is a separate network, or that it is trying to be
pete_rizzo_: a dissenting minority within bitcoin
pete_rizzo_: I'm not quite sure. If I was commissioning it as an academic study, I guess what I would like to see is... There's some taxonomy: Here's how security and functionality are defined at the consensus (node level), at the wallet level, and mining level. Here's how TRB compares to Core. I think this would prove there's a meaningful ability for you to be
pete_rizzo_: that was the one where i discovered bitcoin-assets
pete_rizzo_: http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/
pete_rizzo_: an ideal test i'd like to run is one that proves TRB has the same level of security and functionality as Core
pete_rizzo_: if any, and i concede, there might be none. i just don't know how to prove that out
pete_rizzo_: consensus, etc) are imposed on TRB as a "minority implementation"
pete_rizzo_: right. that part i understand. But the main core implementation has changed. specifically in two forks that with different rules now upheld by "majority hashpower" (segwit + taproot). So, assuming that some other implementation is "protected by the majority hashpower" what is exactly is that protection you don't have. What added costs (wallet,
pete_rizzo_: it was a top hat. felt appropriate
pete_rizzo_: 🎩
pete_rizzo_: I obviously also understand the social and theoretical reasons there is the split (re: shinohai's comment) but that seems separate from defining actual resulting situation is
pete_rizzo_: anyway. sorry if this is disruptive. happy to chat about this in dm if anyone is interested
pete_rizzo_: 4. security (?) (shared hashpower securing transactions?)
pete_rizzo_: 3. pros: not separate chains or separate coins (obviously good?)
pete_rizzo_: 2. each group gets their desired rules
pete_rizzo_: 1. discordant implementations of bitcoin
pete_rizzo_: Ie -- TRB and Bitcoin Core
pete_rizzo_: 4. security (con) (dependent on separate groups of miners for each chain)
pete_rizzo_: 3. cons: there are separate chains and separate asset prices
pete_rizzo_: 2. benefit for users (they get their desired rules)
pete_rizzo_: 1. discordant implementations of Bitcoin
pete_rizzo_: Ie -- Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash
pete_rizzo_: Some of this feels fairly intuitive. It just feels non-specific.
pete_rizzo_: so, how is that possible? why is the desirable? and why does that not occur elsewhere in the coin world? and if there is something meaningfully unique about bitcoin's consensus going on, what actually is it?
pete_rizzo_: What seems to be getting ignored is that both parties seem to be technically doing very different things within the same consensus...
pete_rizzo_: I don't think that's a bad argument shinohai though i'm not sure it gets to the heart of what i'm asking, which is what is the relationship between these two things. Ie -- what is the benefit of you both being on the same network? How does that even work? And why is that desirable for each party?
pete_rizzo_: Well, the argument seems to be something like... core (even its newer soft fork features) are protected by the majority hashpower... and TRB somehow isn't
pete_rizzo_: PeterL This is where being a non-developer works against me. The assertion seems to be, should some attacker be aware of a user who had a lot of bitcoin, and who was running TRB, it would be possible to steal that Bitcoin in a trivial way, though this claim hasn't been substantiated to me
pete_rizzo_: Right. I'm not saying they are right. In fact, I hope that my interest in the TRB implementation shows that I am open-minded and just trying to bridge a knowledge gap. I think if it is proven that TRB is very secure (from a theoretical standpoint) to me that seems like the much more interesting outcome
pete_rizzo_: I'm not sure there's a specific citation. This has just been cited by various core developers to me as their assumption of TRB Bitcoin compares to their current implementation
pete_rizzo_: Hi All – I think you may have heard I have some questions about the TRB Bitcoin implementation. I've uploaded them in the text file above, and was hoping some folks might be able to help me test this out
pete_rizzo_: Uploaded file: https://uploads.kiwiirc.com/files/b6aee730e11798b7b6a2ab348a246562/pasted.txt
pete_rizzo_: maybe warmer
pete_rizzo_: i'm a serf person
pete_rizzo_: nah. i was attempting to get a more tech-saavy friend to lend a hand. I don't really have any programming experience
pete_rizzo_: hm yeah. not sure I can make much sense out of that as I can only really articulate my higher level questions
pete_rizzo_: yeah, that would be great. i am still interested in testing a few hypothesis about how the client works and interfaces with the bitcoin network at large
pete_rizzo_: ah, i see
pete_rizzo_: or does someone host those somewhere?
pete_rizzo_: asciilifeform do you know where i can find the binaries for this? http://thebitcoin.foundation/trb-howto.html
pete_rizzo_: i come in and out. i'm still just so bad at IRC
pete_rizzo_: Thanks. This is interesting to me, as it gets to the questions I was interested in re: running a node. What is the advantage of running TRB (what does it do/not do as opposed to core) and how does it interact with the clients running core
pete_rizzo_: i see, so you just use a core client to do lightning, then withdraw to the TRB client?
pete_rizzo_: right that didn't make much sense to me as TRB doesn't recognize segwit
pete_rizzo_: shinohai you can receive lightning txs with TRB?
pete_rizzo_: noted :)
pete_rizzo_: so acknowledgement of my slavery
pete_rizzo_: yeah also both my computers are apple...
pete_rizzo_: just always feels awkward admitting you don't know how to do things. And I'm familiar with Mircea's view that this is what makes me a slave/serf :)
pete_rizzo_: i have never even downloaded bitcoin core myself (only seen it done), so i found the TBF instructions intimidating
pete_rizzo_: lol well wasn't really chosen for his expertise with TRB. just someone who knows i'm not super technical and figured could set up an instance i could try to transact with, etc
pete_rizzo_: nice to know you guys can help :) sometimes asking is the hard part!
pete_rizzo_: I'm also sometimes embarassingly non-technical
pete_rizzo_: He also has a lot of time now...
pete_rizzo_: ah is it? I know he was a friendly for a while and he's helped me with my technical requests in the past.
pete_rizzo_: getting some help from fluffypony on downloading http://thebitcoin.foundation/trb-howto.html so I can play around with it
pete_rizzo_: Thanks sir. Had a few things going to end the year. Plugging back in :)
pete_rizzo_: yo yo
pete_rizzo_: you still have to download the extra data from segwit blocks though?
pete_rizzo_: and you don't have issues interacting with other wallets or sending and receiving bitcoin? it just works exactly the same even though you don't recognize some of the soft fork rules
pete_rizzo_: shinohai The claim by Bitcoin Core seems to be that this software is 'less secure.' Do you experience any usability issues versus just using bitcoin core?
pete_rizzo_: Question for you all: Are any of you still running/maintaining this software? http://thebitcoin.foundation/
pete_rizzo_: Cardboard confirmed
pete_rizzo_: http://www.contravex.com/2021/07/25/what-does-it-really-mean-to-be-a-sovereign-individual/
pete_rizzo_: not entirely sure if we're on the same subject
pete_rizzo_: Some of what you all have said is a bit above my head. But hopefully this brings a useful other perspecive and y'all understand where i'm at
pete_rizzo_: maybe i'm overthinking it... but as far as I figure it, you start with the assumptions. What do people now believe to be true about Bitcoin. Where do those ideas trace back to and who popularized them (if not Satoshi). They have to come from somewhere
pete_rizzo_: yeah @kakobrekla i'm sure you have a different perspective being inside the thing. It sounded like it all went really badly eventually with TSMR
pete_rizzo_: hm. yeah sorry to hear that. just giving my perspective. I think the arguments for Bitcoin sovereignty, running a node, anti-developer sentiment, and the social stylings of bitcoin users as aspirationally soverign ended up being pretty foundational
pete_rizzo_: user-activated soft fork was the line in the sand against Jihan and the big blockers. It was a piece of code that would have had a certain subset of nodes just implement segwit
pete_rizzo_: yeah but something did change. you can even see it with taproot, where there's a whole class of newer developers who internalized what happened in B-A through the UASF
pete_rizzo_: For example, most of the people involved in the UASF seem to come from B-A. And the entire social stylings of teh movement seem based on 1) Node sovereignty and 2) Being outwardly hostile and soverign. So UASF increasingly just seems like a replay of what developed in B-A
pete_rizzo_: Looking at the development of bitcoin, it seems to me more and more that B-A was really important to establishing parts of the bitcoin ideology that are much much more mainstream, and that took a lot longer to permeate outward
pete_rizzo_: that transition took place). I still kept just being really confused about where "bitcoin maximalism" began
pete_rizzo_: basically after a year of doing interviews for that decided to just go back to the start of Bitcoin Talk and revisit the logs. That resulted in two longer history-type articles that answered questions I had...The first on P2SH (or how bitcoin developer politics took shape post-satoshi). Then I did the Satoshi-Gavin transition (looking at how/why
pete_rizzo_: something like a compendium of that period. But I wasn't super satisfied with what I was doing... felt like I didn't know the people or that I had complete answers for what went on...
pete_rizzo_: I had reached out to MP in April or so (just prior to his passing). As I said above, I was Editor of CoinDesk (sorry!) from 2013-2019. At the end of 2017, I became pretty convinced bitcoin worked finally. So I left CoinDesk... and resolved to do something better for Bitcoin. I started researching the "block size wars," with the intent of writing
pete_rizzo_: Gonna be kind of a long answer
pete_rizzo_: I can read and index a lot of material. I try to make sure I have some guideposts for log digging. just so I have some guideposts and know where/what I'm looking at
pete_rizzo_: lol
pete_rizzo_: added the bracket
pete_rizzo_: yup
pete_rizzo_: i'm in the US
pete_rizzo_: The other link doesn't work for me
pete_rizzo_: No. Here's that blockchain.info website on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20191002091421/https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19NNyVDVqco5PRVZRqt9i7ECAP6CuyLZu4
pete_rizzo_: Hm. I wasn't aware of the withdrawal problems on MPEX. But I didn't follow it to the point where it shut down. Are there references for when MPEX shut down?
pete_rizzo_: I think you would have to look at it as a product of the time. GLBSE was much worse, so was Gox.
pete_rizzo_: Right. It just seems like there was a period of BTC company building that was defined by MPEX, GLBSE and Gox, and of those, MPEX was at least the only one that never collapsed/lost money
pete_rizzo_: Right, but a lot were shut down due to regulatory pressures no?
pete_rizzo_: I've gone back through the logs and don't understand the argument that MPEX didn't support the bitcoin ecosystem of the day. It seems like the only viable ecosystem of non-VC bitcoin businesses
pete_rizzo_: I'm a bit confused. He helped list a lot of early companies on MPEX, no? Assuming he was a shareholder in many?
pete_rizzo_: bitcoin only so far
pete_rizzo_: yes
pete_rizzo_: @asciilifeform do you have the raw URL for the '17 blog. It seems like it's gone and now redirects
pete_rizzo_: I replied. still confusing
pete_rizzo_: Uploaded file: https://uploads.kiwiirc.com/files/f88b4020685398682eb016bb1c78eb50/pasted.txt
pete_rizzo_: hm. good to know i guess
pete_rizzo_: This is a literal quote from this person lol
pete_rizzo_: " I can assure you that someone like myself who tends to fall down rabbit holes now and again is perfectly capable of switching steeds when a faster horse comes along, and NFTs have waaaaay more potential for cultural impact and investment upside than Bitcoin at this point."
pete_rizzo_: i mean if you want to make money on teh bubble til the end of the year, have at it, but there's no morality in it
pete_rizzo_: how do you get from here: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/bitcoin-killer-of-nietzschean-nihilism/ to trading NFT frogs and being entitled about it
pete_rizzo_: Idk why that seems surprising, but i guess another example of how reading blogs gives a flat impression
pete_rizzo_: Hm. I see. So he mirrored and wrote interesting things that played around with presenting the values of the group, but largely parroting it seems?
pete_rizzo_: maybe i missed it but post above seems odd in the vein of his past writings
pete_rizzo_: also what happened to Pete Dushenkshi: http://www.contravex.com/2021/08/08/the-stickiness-of-culture/
pete_rizzo_: thanks both
pete_rizzo_: It's doubly-so with MP just because his writing style was ... well his writing style
pete_rizzo_: interested in understanding in greater detail (as well as its impacts on bitcoin at large)
pete_rizzo_: That makes sense @signpost. I wasn't asking that as a slight. I was more just trying to point out, reading older text, it's hard to appreciate tone and how something was perceived. So, it helps when looking at older events to have that gut check. I believe I understand the conceptual framework underlying B-A and hope it's obvious that is what i'm
pete_rizzo_: The first one is about the P2SH soft fork, the second one is about the Satoshi/Gavin transition
pete_rizzo_: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-disappeared
pete_rizzo_: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-battle-for-p2sh-the-untold-story-of-the-first-bitcoin-war
pete_rizzo_: Sure thing
pete_rizzo_: sounds good. Yes, I'll be here for a bit. If y'all haven't read the history articles I've been putting together they are all told in the present tense of the time, so there's no, here's what so and so said years later...
pete_rizzo_: was basically all based on MP and BA and went back and read Trilema, Stringpuller's blog and Dushenski's blog
pete_rizzo_: how long I've been lurking... tough to say. I'm pretty sure the first thing I read from the group was The Hard Fork Missile Crisis by @thestringpuller. (Which is still one of the greatest bitcoin articles I've read). From there, I followed the Trilema blog and Qntra, but was never deep into the logs. In 2019 I read The Bitcoin Standard, realized it
pete_rizzo_: Anyway, I hope I haven't intruded too much for now. (And sorry I'm bad at IRC)
pete_rizzo_: is ... how seriously the Lordship list was taken and like whether you guys thought it was a fun thing or a VERY serious thing. Which i admit is a badly phrased question, but hopefully sympathetic on a human level
pete_rizzo_: Since it's a bit late here, I guess the other question I'll broach is it's hard to get any semblance of tone from the Trilema blog... which by that I mean to say, since MP was prone to aggrandizement how seriously any of the events in the timeline I've sorted out. So, like a basic question I would have, that i'm not sure that the logs could answer,
pete_rizzo_: Well I guess this at least gives you an idea of how i'm trying to go through the logs and that I do have some rough understanding of the timeline in order
pete_rizzo_: Glad that was useful then :)
pete_rizzo_: I see. I'd be interested I guess in the early B-A logs... According to MP's accounting on Trilemma that starts on APRIL 2, 2012, but I know also that who created that channel was the subject of some later dispute
pete_rizzo_: I guess let me know if I'm thinking about that wrong..
pete_rizzo_: ). So, i should be able to just change the date on the above log link to 10-12-2011 and it will pull that log?
pete_rizzo_: MP has these early blogs with episodes of his Bitcoin-OTC chats (http://trilema.com/2011/fetele-bitcoin-ului-episodul-i/#selection-237.0-319.4
pete_rizzo_: Ok. So, just trying something out...
pete_rizzo_: Sorry 'Era 0'
pete_rizzo_: That's helpful thanks. I'm not quite sure I understand what the 'Era 1' is... Would that be bitcoin-otc, predating bitcoin-assets?
pete_rizzo_: So, I guess I've sorted out that Trilemma and B-A split here: http://trilema.com/2016/the-lordship-list-third-year-on-trilema-this-time/?b=recall%20the%20s&e=%20the#selection-95.1-95.48
pete_rizzo_: That's fair enough (and probably true). I guess what I'm somewhat confused about is where they diverge (and why). I've now read Trilemma and MPOE-PR Bitcoin Talk archives linearly
pete_rizzo_: anyway, sorry if that's long
pete_rizzo_: I'm sure some of you will have reservations about talking to me given my past associations, but I guess to that, I would say, I think my Mircea obituary showcased I have an understanding of what bitcoin-assets was about (as much as any observer could at least)
pete_rizzo_: I started researching Mircea pretty seriously back in April, as I've followed B-A tangentially over the years. My intent was to write up an overview of his life/work in the same vein as the article above (and other recent work).
pete_rizzo_: I now focus on putting together historical pieces for BM (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-disappeared) that are the products of some months of research. My hopes is these will actually add value to Bitcoin in some way, but I may be suffering from the usual human delusions in this regard...
pete_rizzo_: I was one of the first writers at CoinDesk (now an Editor at Bitcoin Magazine). FWIW I largely now agree with all your respective criticisms of CoinDesk and it's failures over the years...
pete_rizzo_: Anyway, I guess I'll give you all the brief introduction I gave #asciilifeform via email.
pete_rizzo_: half the time when i try to explore everything you guys have been up to, i admit, it takes me about 10-15 minutes to wrap my head around where I was previously... :)
pete_rizzo_: barely, but yes
pete_rizzo_: yes, thanks. definitely intend to dig into those
pete_rizzo_: thanks for the invite
pete_rizzo_: eureka