4 ms·

> 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

by 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)
- cixx 9y ago
  > Because the SEC directly asked him to, as an expert on Bitcoin. What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular? What bitcoin related works has he published? What contributions has he made? What role does he play in the "expert" community? At what conferences has he spoken? What makes him qualified to comment on bitcoin economics (or economics in general)? Anyway, I think this is going nowhere. I have seen this exact discussion many times and the end result has never been satisfying for either party. Let's just say the experiment is ongoing and time will tell what the conclusion will be. As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is suspicious that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone who spends so much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas on how to make it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are many bitcoin skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the experiment. But Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.
  - davidgerard 9y ago
    > What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular? It's pretty clear the SEC thought so, given they directly asked him for comment. It's not some self-awarded title we're talking about here. You seem to be ignoring this point in the hope it will go away. > As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is suspicious that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone who spends so much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas on how to make it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are many bitcoin skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the experiment. But Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined. You're taking disagreement as malice. It's possible for something to be trash and yet fascinating - that's the difference between "interesting" and "useful". You're coming across like a creationist trying to make sense of why someone would be an atheist. "They must just hate God!" I think you need to consider the option that he means what he says, and also the possibility that bitcoin isn't all that. (The LN certainly isn't.)

by cixx 9y ago

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)

cixx 9y ago
> Because the SEC directly asked him to, as an expert on Bitcoin. What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular? What bitcoin related works has he published? What contributions has he made? What role does he play in the "expert" community? At what conferences has he spoken? What makes him qualified to comment on bitcoin economics (or economics in general)? Anyway, I think this is going nowhere. I have seen this exact discussion many times and the end result has never been satisfying for either party. Let's just say the experiment is ongoing and time will tell what the conclusion will be. As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is suspicious that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone who spends so much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas on how to make it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are many bitcoin skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the experiment. But Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.
- davidgerard 9y ago
  > What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular? It's pretty clear the SEC thought so, given they directly asked him for comment. It's not some self-awarded title we're talking about here. You seem to be ignoring this point in the hope it will go away. > As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is suspicious that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone who spends so much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas on how to make it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are many bitcoin skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the experiment. But Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined. You're taking disagreement as malice. It's possible for something to be trash and yet fascinating - that's the difference between "interesting" and "useful". You're coming across like a creationist trying to make sense of why someone would be an atheist. "They must just hate God!" I think you need to consider the option that he means what he says, and also the possibility that bitcoin isn't all that. (The LN certainly isn't.)