Chatlogs between Core Developer Eric Lombrozo & someone closely related to a large mining pool opposing SegWit

About the chatlogs

Last month I brought together someone closely related to a large mining pool that opposes SegWit and Core Developer Eric Lombrozo through Twitter DM. I came across this person in the r/bitcoin comments and ended up talking in PM, as he presented himself as a communication bridge. I had spoken to Eric once before and felt like it would be helpful if they talked to each other. I asked them if I could share part of the conversation, which you can find here. I also added another takeaway they shared when I asked for permission.

Why I'm sharing them

The outcome of the conversation is nothing new for most people in this subreddit (I'll also post it in the other one). However, the fact that it was new to the other person (and more people I've come across) made me feel like the general approach Bitcoin Core developers have to scaling isn't well known enough yet.

My summary of that is:

We need to get second layer scaling solutions like Lightning live ASAP, so that we can make data-driven decisions for potential backwards-incompatible blocksize increases in the future. The sooner we know how much pain SegWit and with it Lightning can alleviate from the network, the sooner we can make responsible decision to help Bitcoin scale both on and off-chain.

Everyone wants on-chain scaling

There are no Bitcoin Core developers that I'm aware of that never want to raise the blocksize. This is a myth which needs to end. Even the most conservative developer I've seen, Luke jr, wants to eventually get bigger blocks. Developers simply understand that constantly catering to user need in one layer is a losing battle that will make Bitcoin go down a path we can't return from.

Many of us got into Bitcoin with a long term vision, let's apply that here too, swallow the fees and be responsible. We only have one shot at getting this right.

submitted by /u/SamWouters
[link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core Developer Eric Lombrozo reflects on the Ethereum Classic situation, as it relates to the choices facing the Bitcoin community.

Think of the chain of events in Ethereum: a problem with reentrancy in EVM led to funds getting sucked out of a contract tied to insiders, which led to a transaction reversal, which led to a fork, which led to a split of the ethereum community and network.

And that’s the thing about these attacks – you don’t see them coming until it’s too late.

And the weakest link in all this are not computers, but people.

Things like the block size debate are like kids arguing about what to get in a candy store as it’s burning down, and then complaining that you won’t let them taste the candy.

These networks operate in adversarial conditions. A very tiny region within the entire space of possibilities leads to something that continues to work the way you want (if at all).

This is why throwing darts is probably not the best strategy.

Moreover, the kinds of unwanted things that result are likely to be surprising and unexpected. It’s the nature of adversarial computing environments.

submitted by /u/eragmus
[link] [comments]