4 ms·

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not making any technical claims about what portion of nodes or miners need to collude to compromise Nakamoto consensus. I'm als

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not making any technical claims about what portion of nodes or miners need to collude to compromise Nakamoto consensus. I'm also not arguing that Ripple is superior to bitcoin or vice-versa. I'm arguing that the bitcoin protocol without the Nakamoto consensus is not an improvement over conventional clearing technology, and at least in terms of its claimed features is not much different from ripple consensus -- ie, the federated open source protocol, not the Ripple network that requires XRP and is maintained by Ripple Labs or whatever they are calling themselves these days. Yes I do hold XRP, Bitcoin, and a number of other digital assets, which is consistent with my view that they could become valuable in the future. That doesn't mean I think banks should adopt these protocols to transfer conventional assets. But when I read a press release talking about "blockchain technology" I assume the author either does not understand bitcoin or else is making a wrong prediction about the future.

woah 11y ago
I also hold Bitcoin, I have nothing against it. However, I don't see what's wrong with using and referring to blockchains in contexts that are not Bitcoin. Sure, it's an assembly of technologies used to accomplish a goal, like any software. It's like getting mad about people saying "database", when "everyone knows that databases are just conventional data structures and indexes".
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  It's fine to talk about non-Bitcoin blockchains, e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin both have perfectly functional non-Bitcoin blockchains. No one would argue that. The issue is when you try to apply the word "blockchain" to a technology that has been neutered to the point that it no longer has proofs-of-work in it. It's not really a blockchain at that point because you've removed the main innovation that actually makes the blockchain idea useful. That is what the commenter you responded to meant when he said: > I'm arguing that the bitcoin protocol without the Nakamoto consensus is not an improvement over conventional clearing technology As an analogy, let's say you design a car with no engine, but still insist on calling it a car because it looks like a car and it has most of the same parts. It's not really an illuminating discussion to keep debating whether or not it should be called a car so long as you understand the objection that the car-shaped-object is no longer useful for the purposes that people commonly associate cars with serving.

woah 11y ago

I also hold Bitcoin, I have nothing against it. However, I don't see what's wrong with using and referring to blockchains in contexts that are not Bitcoin. Sure, it's an assembly of technologies used to accomplish a goal, like any software. It's like getting mad about people saying "database", when "everyone knows that databases are just conventional data structures and indexes".

CydeWeys 11y ago
It's fine to talk about non-Bitcoin blockchains, e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin both have perfectly functional non-Bitcoin blockchains. No one would argue that. The issue is when you try to apply the word "blockchain" to a technology that has been neutered to the point that it no longer has proofs-of-work in it. It's not really a blockchain at that point because you've removed the main innovation that actually makes the blockchain idea useful. That is what the commenter you responded to meant when he said: > I'm arguing that the bitcoin protocol without the Nakamoto consensus is not an improvement over conventional clearing technology As an analogy, let's say you design a car with no engine, but still insist on calling it a car because it looks like a car and it has most of the same parts. It's not really an illuminating discussion to keep debating whether or not it should be called a car so long as you understand the objection that the car-shaped-object is no longer useful for the purposes that people commonly associate cars with serving.