📅 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-----
odinn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xv…5j2ga
2023-06-07 15:43:54
in reply to nevent1q…ej6v
Author Public Key
npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gaPublished at
2023-06-07 15:43:54Event JSON
{
"id": "584da192354877f3edc95062f3dbcec8c31b655b3e7f27730404c73a40bfa752",
"pubkey": "33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7",
"created_at": 1686152634,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"78a0486a22513a5dc11dcf66d2407a7e121084a44d2ff4e480cb77dad38c8ddd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"27a801988a0114fc41fa19cf216458aec64bd03fdaecb0400e919f60c2cc71e0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nMike, tone it down, please, when I read your stuff it's like you are\ndrinking too much Red bull or something.\n\nOn 07/29/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e It was _well_ .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish \n\u003e to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain \n\u003e to keep it verifyable on small devices.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later.\n\u003e \"Small devices\" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have\n\u003e been any such understanding.\n\u003e \n\u003e The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words:\n\u003e \n\u003e \"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network\n\u003e grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to\n\u003e specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e That is from 2008:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-\n75.16-83.14\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos\n\u003e and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the\n\u003e system for \"small devices\".\n\u003e \n\u003e I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you\n\u003e have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me\n\u003e about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about.\n\u003e It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over\n\u003e the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision\n\u003e of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a\n\u003e shared goal.\n\u003e \n\u003e If Satoshi had said from the start,\n\u003e \n\u003e \"Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited\n\u003e and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I\n\u003e picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e ... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said,\n\u003e huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is\n\u003e intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out\n\u003e wrong.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e I just did claim otherwise and no, I am not wrong at all.\n\u003e \n\u003e (Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument\n\u003e for SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from\n\u003e your and Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining\n\u003e ecosystem:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Since when have we \"campaigned\" to \"ignore problems\" in the mining \n\u003e ecosystem? What does that even mean? Was it not I who wrote this\n\u003e blog post?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hang\ning-fruit/\n\u003e\n\u003e Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend\n\u003e towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself,\n\u003e or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be\n\u003e used. It's not something I \"fixated\" on, it's right there in the\n\u003e white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj\n\u003e before he left!\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant\n\u003e to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an\n\u003e alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to\n\u003e always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by\n\u003e \"small device\". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone\n\u003e has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that\n\u003e everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then\n\u003e when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity,\n\u003e you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say\n\u003e \"no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices,\n\u003e that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus\n\u003e rules for that reason\".\n\u003e \n\u003e But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting\n\u003e a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people.\n\u003e Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products\n\u003e only for today's tiny user base.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e My list of \"things a full node is useful for\" wasn't ordered by \n\u003e importance, by the way.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuejTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CKigH+gJpevuZ/mbCy9cjhLvX6VT/\nNBQjU82EPDkMkASqoQOekIBOrgODBcN8HsR1xnPHYZYh9HmMaQ/kZDZI3EUP76CU\ns1vvL0AQC11b0aai+z1K5XU6xK+HxRewujBj9lKtH/JuRUHoKUrRIn/5KxT6Nb5+\nOXCpoXKnynfu7T57RrVBOKCPW0Oo7jay9owjDzy+J/ATfqqPDB++7nDbPPVzyrNs\n6TlHaC/CxRcq832lwBe1KwaX4A7KFiqHwWoK5/R7Ccyj5X21nHXnDOuXLqwOfGtH\n1aARAQ6dqHor5Kw9/Y7yAdoNnrK3XYR80Qdr6I77f3X2B40GdnBiBOSUpoQNAB0=\n=nRef\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "755c3bd22898a06e36b0ea2a5d13c5611364bd7d34c268dc415e8d40f9e091cc4fe07a1478d56d3b1bcaff9c0732373a7dc27107805c440ec8cb28331969b2c1"
}