None of those buzzwords mean anything without decentralization of the network, which is something Saylor has been doing everything in his power to subvert.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Below are my rebuttals, and one agreement. > "1- If @TwhitNub101 (AlphaMine) was going to be a malicious actor he wouldn't be genuine in working with the community to throttle his hashpower to begin with." I think it's more accurate to say that if he were purely interested in destroying the chain, he would have already done so. It's clear to me that he is at least *partly* economically motivated. But I think we should be careful in treating him as non-malicious until proven otherwise, and he has given plenty of indication that he is not here for the health of our network. Additionally, I don't think we should assume we know how/when a malicious actor will execute his attack. > "2- If he's willing to work with the community he doesn't pose an immediate threat and the better mitigation would be to have him increase his pool fees..." Again, I feel it's too risky given our current state to relax our guard around anyone controlling so much network hash. Him being availed of it is a threat, even if no attack is yet executed. Further, we can't sit and wait for an attack, because then it will be too late to stop him or deploy counter-measures. > "3- @LukeDashjr has a conflict of interest here as he's trying to stand up a competative[sic] pool so having Luke also be the main judge, jury and executioner of a competative[sic] pool..." I think this would hold more water as an argument if AlphaMine were using DATUM, which allows miners to choose block templates and enables miner decentralization, which is what Luke's pool is using. Anyone using STRATUM v1 must be considered a threat. DATUM pools are of a different kind, and this is therefore not competitive, as I see it. > "4- The optics of allowing Luke to unilaterally ban AlphaMine from Discord and also banning voices like myself from the discussion and subsequently finding a method to kick AlphaMine off the network when they haven't actually executed an attack is..." AlphaMine must be treated as an adversary, given his choice to use STRATUM v1 and the amount of hash he controls. I think *not* banning him simply risks giving a potential enemy the location of all your bases, so-to-speak, and this would be ill-advised. However, I too am concerned about banning *any* dissident voices, as this sets a precedent, and can lead to witch hunts which quickly get out of control. This is my only agreement with your post, but I think it's a vital one. We must be trusted to be individually intelligent and wise enough to come to our own conclusions when exposed to information, or we're doomed. If we can't be trusted to make up our own minds, we are left with censorship, discreditation campaigns, and propaganda, none of which lead us to a good place. Many eyes are on us now, watching and waiting for weaknesses. And they can weaponize paranoia as easily as naivete. We must be careful not to let fear of one drive us into the other.
Regarding AlphaMine, to answer your question about proof, there are multiple issues in play here. One is determining who this AlphaMine character is. Irredeemably evil, misunderstood genius, something in the middle? The other is about what we do to defend ourselves. I need no proof whatsoever to determine that we need to defend ourselves, as > 50% hash is an existential threat, regardless of the intent or character behind it. Determining motivations might help in figuring out what sorts of countermeasures will be the most effective in dealing with the issue. Some people are going to respond well social pressure. Others are going to be provoked further by it. Some people are going to respond to economic incentives. Others are going to have different goals. Understanding the person's character/motivation is essential to finding the best avenue in dealing with them. Maybe you don't see the value in that, but I do. And I'm not interested in a monolithic culture. We all make mistakes, we all need pushback sometimes. What's important is that we provide pathways for people to be redeemed. Paranoia is a great way to destroy the trust from the inside out. And conformity around every issue is a great way to ensure it rots the same way the SHA256 community did.
Direct seizure ala 6102 is not necessary in order to effectively seize or freeze custodial assets. Our government knows the difficulty of getting away with something so brazen today, so instead, they chip away at our property rights a little a time in all sorts of ways. This has already happened in the traditional banking system, because AML laws give wide latitude in terms of interpretation and action. Anything they find "suspicious" is cause for freezing of funds or worse. It's entirely at their discretion. How are Aunt Sally and Uncle Jim going to sue Bank of America and force discovery? Additionally, many jurisdictions are scrambling to enact punishing escheatment laws. Want to simply hold your crypto for 5 years? Oops, belongs to the state of California now. Exchanges and brokerages also already make it extremely difficult to transfer crypto assets to private wallets by forcing enormous amounts of KYC friction (which often plain doesn't work at all) and restricting how much you can move at any time and within what timeframes, which they will claim is for your own "safety." I've spent many weeks waiting for permission to move miniscule amounts, and many hours in customer service calls getting my transfer privileges unfrozen. They don't even need to give you a reason, if you ask them why you can't make transfers or access your accounts. Does that sound like something that happens to things you own? Additionally, there are many temptations to encumber your assets by borrowing against them, which can lock them up indefinitely, or result in liquidation during a flash crash. If you're rich, you needn't worry as much, because you're in the club, and the typical rules don't apply to you, unless you have the wrong politics. But I've personally been threatened and had accounts or activity frozen by one bank and one brokerage for daring to move what is theoretically my own money in perfectly legal ways to perfectly legal places that they just happened not to like. Most of what's needed already exists to keep your money locked up so the state can tax and probate it away to nothing, or simply keep you in the fiat cage. They don't need 6102.
Indeed I did ask about the reversal, and I appreciate the thorough reply. I appreciated having you as an ally during the BIP-110 saga. You're clearly a highly intelligent person, and we needed all the brain hash we could muster. However, I'm still seeing dissonance. When you say, > "[Miners] are all one matrix incentive-driven machine, already captured. Rock on, Bitcoin." It simultaneously admits that capture has taken place on SHA256 while cheering it on. I don't know how you square this circle in your mind, and this is one of the bits that is confusing me. If you know and agree that it's a centralized, captured chain, what is there to root for exactly? You can hope for NGU, but that's just vibes. We *know* the value proposition isn't there... So whatever tricks the centralized masters pull, it's all about the greater fool now. Do you plan to exit after a good pump in price? And in any case, how can you cheer it on in good conscience? My conscience leads me to warn people *not* to invest in this thing or in its treasury derivative-type instruments because it's not like I know exactly who is poised to rug, or when they'll do it. Do you? Every day seems to have a new scandal. CoinKite, Blockstream, Metaplanet, etc. > "BLAKE2B HARDFORK DOESN'T SOLVE THE MINER DECENTRALIZATION BUG" Multi-lane has tradeoffs and issues of its own, as I understand it, and may not actually be a sufficient solution. I agree that the decentralization bug is unsolved. It might be unsolvable by proof of work mechanisms, alone. But I think we only discover this by actually running the experiment. As interesting and thought-provoking as a simulation might be, it is only that---a simulation. It cannot model the emerging problems and potential solutions as they occur in real time, nor can we properly simulate social behavior without replicating an entire society and all of its agents in full detail. It is irreducibly complex. I would never allow a simulation to prevent me from taking action with respect to something in which I believe. Life has to be about more than simple accounting and outcomes. > "Without automatic, two-way replay protection, which is the gold standard for alt-bitcoin forks, there is LITTLE CHANCE that any major credible exchange will list the coin." With respect to exchanges not listing, this is fiat thinking. Large centralized exchanges do not need to exist at all for bitcoin to be useful. These are mainly for people to offramp into fiat or for those unable or unwilling to take proper self-custody, which does not fit with the purpose of bitcoin. This is what I mean when I question whether your stance has changed, because you seemed to be a person of principle, with belief in bitcoin's core mission, but now seem only concerned with NGU, fiat, and centralized, KYC exchanges. If there has been no change in attitude, then I mistook your stance for belief and conviction in the principles underlying bitcoin.
> "This is user opt-in, one-way replay protection." So it does have replay protection. Maybe you should correct the "NO REPLAY PROTECTION 😂" statement you made earlier. And it does have protection in both directions, just via different mechanisms. That's two-way protection. Whether or not it's automatic and opt-in is up to the wallet software being used. You're splitting hairs. > "...there is LITTLE CHANCE that any major credible exchange will list the coin." Who cares what government regulated, corrupt, captured, centralized exchanges support with respect to bitcoin? Have you entirely forgotten that bitcoin was created to take us AWAY from this kind of thinking? That we don't need the blessing of large centralized institutions to do our banking and transacting? Without principles, Number Go Down, not Up. What do you think is the point of bitcoin? Where do you think its value lies? Is it in a chart, or its properties?
You are referring to digital capital/permissionless blockspace where pedos freely argue in favor of unlimited arbitrary data on network and anything else as censorship... as "real actual Bitcoin." Coming from someone who supported BIP-110, what explains this complete reversal in your attitude?
How is it worse than being already captured? SHA256 is dead. Dead now. Not in the future. It already died and we're the only ones who held a funeral. BLAKE2b is dying... No one is saying it isn't vulnerable. It obviously is. But I'll take dying and vulnerable over DEAD. This is no choice at all. False dichotomy. If you actually want to help by listing the vulnerabilities that require mitigation, get involved with principal devs in the repo or join the discord. Otherwise, I don't know what your game is.
And this makes less sense to you than doing nothing? Two Chinese pools in the SHA256 chain have > 51% of the network's hash under them, and this doesn't concern you? Free market? 🤤