"This shouldn’t even be a public debate. It’s like the public debating and voting on the graphite reactors that prevent a nuclear reactor from overheating and melting down. There are certain things you should let the engineers decide." – Nick Szabo (reddi

Taken from the Tim Ferris Podcast interview with Nick Szabo and Naval Ravikant. Audio Version Transcript Tim Ferris: Nick, what are the biggest misconceptions or common misunderstandings related to cryptocurrency or Bitcoin? If there’s anything where you’re like “God, this drives me nuts. If I hear…


A question for NYA supporters : Software from Garzik is still not ready or it’s hidden from github ….why would you trust a fork like this?

BTC1 Github's page has stopped being active Fork is in 2 weeks and the community has not seen anything ready for Alpha yet

I can understand supporters of NYA agreement being still convinced a S2X is needed but how can you think a fork like this, meant with NO REPLAY protection, can be deployed safely without any vetting from hundreds or even thousands of people before? I am aware that probably NYA Signers recieved their "preview" of the code, but how can people in the bitcoin comunity be ok with closed Source developing and eventually going open source so late that vetting source code is impossible?

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

It’s not a big deal to say “I was wrong”. Sticking with what’s wrong when you know what’s right is a big deal. (reddit.com)

I believe that the NYA signatories went into the deal thinking they were reaching a reasonable compromise. For various reasons it is clear now that what the NYA represents is bad for bitcoin. The mature and rational adult thing to do is to admit that things didn’t turn out as they expected and to move forward based on what you now know that you did not know before. The only defence for proceeding with NYA that I hear are that the signatories “keep their word”. That’s not sensible. There is…


The audacity of B2X is that they *know* it’s unbelievably contentious, and that’s their excuse for *needing* to kill the minority chain. Otherwise it “might not work.”

I have now seen on multiple occasions from many of the top proponents of B2X that if they add replay protection the whole thing will die… except they think 90% of the hash means they can do whatever they want.

The fact that they push this in the face of admitting that under conditions of competition their chain will fail miserably, is an admission that there is absolutely, unequivocally, and without question, no way there is consensus for this change.

There just isn't support for this… and the fact that they are simultaneously trying to force this on the network, take advantage of the ignorant money left on Coinbase (essentially pulling the rug out from under 11 million uninformed users), and admitting that it won't work if they just get their supporters on board is seriously unbelievable.

They have even dropped every narrative up to this point. They don't argue about fees anymore, they don't argue about it being a necessity, and they don't even argue scaling. They literally just say "doesn't matter, we agreed, and there is consensus." And yet there is so obviously not any kind of consensus whatsoever that I have a really really hard time believing these people are that dense.

I've slowly come to the realization that they just don't care what users want. I have been directly told this numerous times by r/BTC people, but I'm not one to just take a random comment and apply it to someone totally different.

Now, however, the argument is so often touted that "it doesn't matter what users want, miners have decided" and to go completely unanswered (just upvotes) that I can't help but think that this is their new position.

TL;DR. It totally seems the narrative of this fork has changed. They once attempted reasoned arguments that I disagreed with about severity, critical scaling now, bitcoin will die and so on. Now that all that turned out to be bullshit and we have plenty of scaling, they have just fallen back on "who cares about users, users are stupid, miners made an agreement."

• for those that claim this isn't their stance, I've heard it from many HF supporters that users have no idea what they want, they are stupid, and hash power is all that matters. Literally just ask them, no one is even hiding that opinion.

edit: spelling, a few words, clarity

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