1/2
The reality is that if BTC core changed their name to SegWit or lightning coin or anything else similar, I would have absolutely no problems with them.
I'm very happy for developers to continue on alternative paths and even ones I don't believe are valuable. The fact that I don't believe something will be successful is not a reasoning for why other people will stop.
Those who want to develop lightning want to make a system that is analogous to the one we have already. It has no interest to me and it has no relationship to bitcoin.
The Bitcoin White Paper defines digital cash. It is a system that allows for micro payments. Lightning and the other systems being sold as digital gold do not allow for any of this.
There is nothing anarchist in my system at all. It was never released on a cypherpunk mailing list or anything cypherpunk or anarchist in any manner.
The nature of bitcoin is one that allows you to send payments directly from one party to another.
This statement is used to head up the abstract. Sending bitcoin from an individual to a node to a node to another person eventually is not analogous to a direct electronic cash payment.
The first paragraph of the bitcoin White Paper defines bitcoin as a system that allows for small online payments. The system that does not exist is not digital gold. Digital gold is common, digital gold has existed for forty years in one form or another.
The system that interested me and that has not come to fruition and that should be pushed is very simply a system that allows for small casual transactions.
The creation of a system to do small transactions is the true invention of bitcoin. It is not a system that allows for exchanges of large amounts of money for high fees as a primary mechanism.
And, no I don't have a timeframe I'm sorry.
The fact that you can form a record that does not change unless you redo the proof of work does not mean you cannot change the ownership structure in bitcoin either. There is a difference between saying that a record has been changed and that a ledger entry has been made.
When you run corporate accounts under Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or under provisions in the UK in IFRS it is necessary to ensure that records do not change. That is distinct and different from saying that they cannot be updated.
You can update a record without changing the original entry
The nature of large transactions provides for changes. This would not work on small transactions. The cost of reversing a transaction is part of the process. If you make a five dollar coffee purchase, it can be considered final straightaway. If you make a $5 million purchase, that is never finalised until the law says it is finalised.
And yes, nodes may add any necessary rules through the incentive structure of bitcoin
The consensus mechanism is the mining of blocks
I think bitcoin would be far larger without silk Road
The narrative of silk Road has hindered bitcoin by decades. It ruined the last twelve years and it has put barriers in front of us even now
There is nothing that cannot be done in the original protocol that is not being discussed here.
The alert key allowed for the freezing of funds.
The system was messy but still allowed for addendums to the system. Users would never know unless they were the people impacted. A court order could be written on chain and all of this would be public.
Each UTXO could be captured using a spandrel for the miners. It's only the miners that make these decisions. The so-called user nodes have no decision on this matter.
The cost of doing such an action would be extensive. It's going to preclude recovering small amounts completely and any amount such as US$50,000 would even be out of reach.
CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
The reality is that if BTC core changed their name to SegWit or lightning coin or anything else similar, I would have absolutely no problems with them.
I'm very happy for developers to continue on alternative paths and even ones I don't believe are valuable. The fact that I don't believe something will be successful is not a reasoning for why other people will stop.
Those who want to develop lightning want to make a system that is analogous to the one we have already. It has no interest to me and it has no relationship to bitcoin.
The Bitcoin White Paper defines digital cash. It is a system that allows for micro payments. Lightning and the other systems being sold as digital gold do not allow for any of this.
There is nothing anarchist in my system at all. It was never released on a cypherpunk mailing list or anything cypherpunk or anarchist in any manner.
The nature of bitcoin is one that allows you to send payments directly from one party to another.
This statement is used to head up the abstract. Sending bitcoin from an individual to a node to a node to another person eventually is not analogous to a direct electronic cash payment.
The first paragraph of the bitcoin White Paper defines bitcoin as a system that allows for small online payments. The system that does not exist is not digital gold. Digital gold is common, digital gold has existed for forty years in one form or another.
The system that interested me and that has not come to fruition and that should be pushed is very simply a system that allows for small casual transactions.
The creation of a system to do small transactions is the true invention of bitcoin. It is not a system that allows for exchanges of large amounts of money for high fees as a primary mechanism.
And, no I don't have a timeframe I'm sorry.
The fact that you can form a record that does not change unless you redo the proof of work does not mean you cannot change the ownership structure in bitcoin either. There is a difference between saying that a record has been changed and that a ledger entry has been made.
When you run corporate accounts under Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or under provisions in the UK in IFRS it is necessary to ensure that records do not change. That is distinct and different from saying that they cannot be updated.
You can update a record without changing the original entry
The nature of large transactions provides for changes. This would not work on small transactions. The cost of reversing a transaction is part of the process. If you make a five dollar coffee purchase, it can be considered final straightaway. If you make a $5 million purchase, that is never finalised until the law says it is finalised.
And yes, nodes may add any necessary rules through the incentive structure of bitcoin
The consensus mechanism is the mining of blocks
I think bitcoin would be far larger without silk Road
The narrative of silk Road has hindered bitcoin by decades. It ruined the last twelve years and it has put barriers in front of us even now
There is nothing that cannot be done in the original protocol that is not being discussed here.
The alert key allowed for the freezing of funds.
The system was messy but still allowed for addendums to the system. Users would never know unless they were the people impacted. A court order could be written on chain and all of this would be public.
Each UTXO could be captured using a spandrel for the miners. It's only the miners that make these decisions. The so-called user nodes have no decision on this matter.
The cost of doing such an action would be extensive. It's going to preclude recovering small amounts completely and any amount such as US$50,000 would even be out of reach.
CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment