4 ms·

Anyone who is up to date with what is going on with bitcoin can see this is a gross oversimplification. But I guess that is to be expected from Jorge Stolfi who

by cixx 9y ago

Anyone who is up to date with what is going on with bitcoin can see this is a gross oversimplification. But I guess that is to be expected from Jorge Stolfi who is ideologically opposed to bitcoin and has been on a crusade to try and stop it or change it into some neutered version of it.

davidgerard 9y ago
> gross oversimplification Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy, rather than skipping straight to ad hominem: > ideologically opposed to bitcoin This is otherwise known as "knowing what he's talking about", which he does to a sufficient degree that the SEC reached out and asked him for an expanded comment on the Winklevoss ETF application last year - it's 27 pages that makes a pretty good critical book on Bitcoin in itself: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-20.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx20163... He knows the area and the details, and you can't credibly claim he doesn't.
- cixx 9y ago
  > Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy Like I said, it's an oversimplification beyond recognition of the actual situation. It's the equivalent of a 30 second sound bite covering a major contentious issue that has been going on for years and this "explanation" doesn't contribute to the understanding of what is going on and hence doesn't deserve a detailed response. All I'm saying is he has an agenda and people should keep that in mind when reading this.
  - foepys 9y ago
    I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of. To my knowledge, Jorge Stolfi is not affiliated with any financial institution. He is a professor of computer science, not economics or any similar field that you could tie to banks.
    - cixx 9y ago
      > He is a professor of computer science, not economics or any similar field that you could tie to banks. Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments to the SEC and boasted about it the notorious anti-bitcoin subreddit /r/buttcoin. > I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of. Stolfi has been a long time critic of bitcoin because he determined it could not scale because it is an inefficient system. I can understand that argument because it is true from a computer science perspective; bitcoin is a broadcast network where every node has to process all transactions made. No issue there. But given that fact, doesn't it seem strange then that he is actively participating (in a positive way) in conversation with the people (bitcoin cash supporters) who want to make the bitcoin system more inefficient (broadcast more "redundant" data) by his own definition? Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential to fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network (which is practically not possible with bitcoin cash). Not to mention his use of derogatory terms like "Blockstream/Core" for the open source project that has massively increased the performance and capabilities (and thus scaling) of bitcoin, and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering" techniques. Another particular thing with Stofli is in how many ways he thinks bitcoin is illegal (which has nothing to do with his scaling argument) as you can listen to in this interview: https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-bitcoin-with-jorge-stolfi-of-rbuttcoin-king-of-the-butters https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-bitcoin... I could go on and on with these examples. If you are interested you could take a look at his comment history on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi (all my examples and more are in there). His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he can be trusted for that reason. Gregory Maxwell, one of the most respected and accomplished bitcoin developers, had this to say about him: "Sometimes you encounter a person whos opposition means that you're doing something right. Jorge Stolfi is one of those people."
      - davidgerard 9y ago
        > Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments to the SEC Because the SEC directly asked him to, as an expert on Bitcoin. > Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential to fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network (which is practically not possible with bitcoin cash). For scaling he does think big blocks are a less bad idea, and that "sidechains" are hopelessly underspecified. But his objections to the LN are detailed, and really haven't been addressed by proponents. It's questionable both conceptually and in what passes for an implementation (after two years of it being vaporware). It's entirely unclear how being a "vocal critic" of an idea that's bad on multiple layers is an "agenda". >and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering" techniques. Uh, that's pretty much what they are in practice. Bitcoin has enough problems as a vehicle for money laundering with full history on the chain; making it less traceable is immediately going to make it more attractive for money laundering. "privacy improvements" is very nonspecific. Can you link said "privacy improvements" and Stolfi's statement about them? > His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he can be trusted for that reason. I have yet to see an inconsistency. You still haven't set out the "agenda" you claimed, nor evidence for it. Your main objection seems to be that you disagree with him, and that he thinks the LN is bad. (Emin Gun Sirer is a computer science professor who is similarly disdainful of the LN, can't wait to hear what his "agenda" is)
  - davidgerard 9y ago
    > he has an agenda You still haven't stated what it is, let alone substantiated your ad hominem. Please do so. (Particularly if you're going to refuse to say what's wrong with his actual words while you try to attack his character - together, this gives the strong impression you've got nothing.)

by cixx 9y ago

davidgerard 9y ago

> gross oversimplification Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy, rather than skipping straight to ad hominem: > ideologically opposed to bitcoin This is otherwise known as "knowing what he's talking about", which he does to a sufficient degree that the SEC reached out and asked him for an expanded comment on the Winklevoss ETF application last year - it's 27 pages that makes a pretty good critical book on Bitcoin in itself: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-20.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx20163... He knows the area and the details, and you can't credibly claim he doesn't.

cixx 9y ago
> Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy Like I said, it's an oversimplification beyond recognition of the actual situation. It's the equivalent of a 30 second sound bite covering a major contentious issue that has been going on for years and this "explanation" doesn't contribute to the understanding of what is going on and hence doesn't deserve a detailed response. All I'm saying is he has an agenda and people should keep that in mind when reading this.
- foepys 9y ago
  I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of. To my knowledge, Jorge Stolfi is not affiliated with any financial institution. He is a professor of computer science, not economics or any similar field that you could tie to banks.
  - cixx 9y ago
    > He is a professor of computer science, not economics or any similar field that you could tie to banks. Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments to the SEC and boasted about it the notorious anti-bitcoin subreddit /r/buttcoin. > I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of. Stolfi has been a long time critic of bitcoin because he determined it could not scale because it is an inefficient system. I can understand that argument because it is true from a computer science perspective; bitcoin is a broadcast network where every node has to process all transactions made. No issue there. But given that fact, doesn't it seem strange then that he is actively participating (in a positive way) in conversation with the people (bitcoin cash supporters) who want to make the bitcoin system more inefficient (broadcast more "redundant" data) by his own definition? Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential to fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network (which is practically not possible with bitcoin cash). Not to mention his use of derogatory terms like "Blockstream/Core" for the open source project that has massively increased the performance and capabilities (and thus scaling) of bitcoin, and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering" techniques. Another particular thing with Stofli is in how many ways he thinks bitcoin is illegal (which has nothing to do with his scaling argument) as you can listen to in this interview: https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-bitcoin-with-jorge-stolfi-of-rbuttcoin-king-of-the-butters https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-bitcoin... I could go on and on with these examples. If you are interested you could take a look at his comment history on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi (all my examples and more are in there). His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he can be trusted for that reason. Gregory Maxwell, one of the most respected and accomplished bitcoin developers, had this to say about him: "Sometimes you encounter a person whos opposition means that you're doing something right. Jorge Stolfi is one of those people."
    - davidgerard 9y ago
      > Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments to the SEC Because the SEC directly asked him to, as an expert on Bitcoin. > Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential to fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network (which is practically not possible with bitcoin cash). For scaling he does think big blocks are a less bad idea, and that "sidechains" are hopelessly underspecified. But his objections to the LN are detailed, and really haven't been addressed by proponents. It's questionable both conceptually and in what passes for an implementation (after two years of it being vaporware). It's entirely unclear how being a "vocal critic" of an idea that's bad on multiple layers is an "agenda". >and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering" techniques. Uh, that's pretty much what they are in practice. Bitcoin has enough problems as a vehicle for money laundering with full history on the chain; making it less traceable is immediately going to make it more attractive for money laundering. "privacy improvements" is very nonspecific. Can you link said "privacy improvements" and Stolfi's statement about them? > His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he can be trusted for that reason. I have yet to see an inconsistency. You still haven't set out the "agenda" you claimed, nor evidence for it. Your main objection seems to be that you disagree with him, and that he thinks the LN is bad. (Emin Gun Sirer is a computer science professor who is similarly disdainful of the LN, can't wait to hear what his "agenda" is)
- davidgerard 9y ago
  > he has an agenda You still haven't stated what it is, let alone substantiated your ad hominem. Please do so. (Particularly if you're going to refuse to say what's wrong with his actual words while you try to attack his character - together, this gives the strong impression you've got nothing.)