21 ms·

> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Sa

by nullc 3y ago

> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi. But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified. > BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value Citation needed. That doesn't even make sense: You can't give the Bitcoin currency itself "intrinsic value" just because people use it to buy or sell some kind of good or another.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute. Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provides. In contrast to ETH.
- nullc 3y ago
  "The tokens" can't be a medium of requesting compute except in the sense that any money can be used to pay for goods and services. When we talk about something having intrinsic value it doesn't really make sense to argue it on the basis of "you can use it as money to pay people to do stuff", that's an extrinsic value. (It also seems to be a non-sequitur. If you want to pay people to perform computation for you only the most minimal functionality from Bitcoin's script is required to do so in a trustless manner, e.g. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... ) You've also appear to have ignored my correction on your "stopped" and "BTC was supposed to" remarks, if you're engaging in this discussion in good faith and were simply mistaken it would be polite to retract your error.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    They can be when the tokens are themselves bounties which can be automatically claimed, eg by posing SAT problems to the network which represent a transformed version of your problem and the script claiming them a solution you can translate back. This can be (and was prototyped as) a marketplace for optimization problems — until the implementation moved in another direction. Creating a marketplace where the goods can automatically be obtained for tokens is different than fiat currency in meaningful ways and provides a reason for people to buy the tokens at all. That any money can be used for all that BTC is good for (except evading bank controls) is why there’s slowed adoption following that change. - - - - I didn’t respond because thats not my understanding, but arguing over old history isn’t a productive use of time. Accusing me of “bad faith” because I didn’t respond how you wanted me to and instead chose to engage in the productive part of the discussion is itself poor conversational etiquette — particularly when you didn’t bother to provide any evidence for your claim. Despite claims that doing so would be easy. Perhaps you should set the example of politeness you purportedly expect.
    - nullc 3y ago
      Let me try to parse out the facts that you've alleged here. 1. That it was Satoshis intention that Bitcoin would have intrinsic value resulting from acting as a "a marketplace for optimization problems" and that this was his vision of bitcoin. This is false and I don't believe be supported by anything ever posted by Satoshi or any prior version of Bitcoin. To make a positive argument: There is no mention of that in the Bitcoin whitepaper (which makes no mention of Script at all), nor in Satoshi's descriptions of Bitcoin: e.g. https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sou... Satoshi even wrote specifically on the origin of Bitcoin's value and didn't make any mention of this intention you suggest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405#msg11405 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405#msg1140... -- even arguably refuting the claim that he thought Bitcoin was intended to have any intrinsic value. I don't believe using Bitcoin to trustlessly pay for solutions to problems was ever mentioned or discussed by Satoshi, it's possible he considered it but he certainly didn't market bitcoin on that basis. If he had I think it would have rightfully been criticized as not very interesting or important. 2. Specific persons "stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM, moving it away from Satoshi’s vision" I'm aware of well funded campaigns from a con artist fraudulently claiming to be Satoshi making this false allegation so I understand how you could have just been suffering from misinformation on this point, but it's been corrected now and I'd be happy to elaborate on it to whatever level you're interested in. The reason I've asked for a retraction is because the claim isn't just objectively false-- it's an accusation that persons performed a potentially tortious or even criminal act. Because it's a damaging allegation and one that has been specifically targeted at me, I think I'm entitled to insist that you substantiate it (which you cannot because it's false) or withdraw it. I'm perfectly happy to talk through any confusion or misunderstanding-- my apologies if you felt my response escalated to an accusation of bad faith too rapidly. From my perspective you made a serious accusation then when it was countered you simply disengaged with it, which to me seemed like you lacked a genuine interest in getting to the truth. 2a. "there’s slowed adoption following that change" Unless you're referring to Satoshi removing[1] a number of script opcodes that allowed unbounded memory usage and other vulnerabilities in July 2010 there has been no reduction in the functionality of Bitcoin's VM. Presumably not, since virtually all adoption of Bitcoin occurred long after that point. Nor was it a change that produced the sorts of limitations you think exist. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/757f0769d8360ea043f469f3a35f6ec204740446#diff-27496895958ca30c47bbb873299a2ad7a7ea1003a9faa96b317250e3b7aa1fefL374 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/757f0769d8360ea043... 3. "are themselves bounties which can be automatically claimed, eg by posing SAT problems to the network" Notwithstanding the points at 1. and 2. it's always been possible to make Bitcoin payments which are trustlessly dependent on solving an arbitrary computer specifiable problem. This works fine today and requires very minimal properties from the system, I provided you with a link to an example demonstration. In that example I used a large sudoku instead of SAT because it's better known to a lay audience, but it's equivalently NP-complete. > particularly when you didn’t bother to provide any evidence for your claim. Despite claims that doing so would be easy I am particularly confused by this remark: What easily sourced claim did I make that I failed to source? I provided you with a link to a concrete demonstration of trading a solution for Bitcoin, which I believe disproves the central thesis of your remark: the thing you say can't be done can be. (Though I still don't agree that it provides any intrinsic value to Bitcoin: The ability to make escrows for information that don't require third parties is a reason that Bitcoin is superior to legacy forms of money, but you can just as well say that for its other positive properties such as the ability to be sent world wide online, the fact that payments are made without an intermediary that can block them, etc. I don't think it's a controversial point that properties make Bitcoin a better form of money compared to some other form of money don't constitute intrinsic value because they're not exclusive.) For your other factual claims 1, 2, and 2a (as I've labeled them): You are asserting something happened which I say is pure fiction. It's generally not easy to provide a citation to prove a negative but if they had happened it would be easy for you to provide supporting material (e.g. the commits making the change in popular bitcoin software).

by nullc 3y ago

zmgsabst 3y ago

Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute. Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provides. In contrast to ETH.

nullc 3y ago
"The tokens" can't be a medium of requesting compute except in the sense that any money can be used to pay for goods and services. When we talk about something having intrinsic value it doesn't really make sense to argue it on the basis of "you can use it as money to pay people to do stuff", that's an extrinsic value. (It also seems to be a non-sequitur. If you want to pay people to perform computation for you only the most minimal functionality from Bitcoin's script is required to do so in a trustless manner, e.g. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... ) You've also appear to have ignored my correction on your "stopped" and "BTC was supposed to" remarks, if you're engaging in this discussion in good faith and were simply mistaken it would be polite to retract your error.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  They can be when the tokens are themselves bounties which can be automatically claimed, eg by posing SAT problems to the network which represent a transformed version of your problem and the script claiming them a solution you can translate back. This can be (and was prototyped as) a marketplace for optimization problems — until the implementation moved in another direction. Creating a marketplace where the goods can automatically be obtained for tokens is different than fiat currency in meaningful ways and provides a reason for people to buy the tokens at all. That any money can be used for all that BTC is good for (except evading bank controls) is why there’s slowed adoption following that change. - - - - I didn’t respond because thats not my understanding, but arguing over old history isn’t a productive use of time. Accusing me of “bad faith” because I didn’t respond how you wanted me to and instead chose to engage in the productive part of the discussion is itself poor conversational etiquette — particularly when you didn’t bother to provide any evidence for your claim. Despite claims that doing so would be easy. Perhaps you should set the example of politeness you purportedly expect.
  - nullc 3y ago
    Let me try to parse out the facts that you've alleged here. 1. That it was Satoshis intention that Bitcoin would have intrinsic value resulting from acting as a "a marketplace for optimization problems" and that this was his vision of bitcoin. This is false and I don't believe be supported by anything ever posted by Satoshi or any prior version of Bitcoin. To make a positive argument: There is no mention of that in the Bitcoin whitepaper (which makes no mention of Script at all), nor in Satoshi's descriptions of Bitcoin: e.g. https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sou... Satoshi even wrote specifically on the origin of Bitcoin's value and didn't make any mention of this intention you suggest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405#msg11405 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405#msg1140... -- even arguably refuting the claim that he thought Bitcoin was intended to have any intrinsic value. I don't believe using Bitcoin to trustlessly pay for solutions to problems was ever mentioned or discussed by Satoshi, it's possible he considered it but he certainly didn't market bitcoin on that basis. If he had I think it would have rightfully been criticized as not very interesting or important. 2. Specific persons "stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM, moving it away from Satoshi’s vision" I'm aware of well funded campaigns from a con artist fraudulently claiming to be Satoshi making this false allegation so I understand how you could have just been suffering from misinformation on this point, but it's been corrected now and I'd be happy to elaborate on it to whatever level you're interested in. The reason I've asked for a retraction is because the claim isn't just objectively false-- it's an accusation that persons performed a potentially tortious or even criminal act. Because it's a damaging allegation and one that has been specifically targeted at me, I think I'm entitled to insist that you substantiate it (which you cannot because it's false) or withdraw it. I'm perfectly happy to talk through any confusion or misunderstanding-- my apologies if you felt my response escalated to an accusation of bad faith too rapidly. From my perspective you made a serious accusation then when it was countered you simply disengaged with it, which to me seemed like you lacked a genuine interest in getting to the truth. 2a. "there’s slowed adoption following that change" Unless you're referring to Satoshi removing[1] a number of script opcodes that allowed unbounded memory usage and other vulnerabilities in July 2010 there has been no reduction in the functionality of Bitcoin's VM. Presumably not, since virtually all adoption of Bitcoin occurred long after that point. Nor was it a change that produced the sorts of limitations you think exist. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/757f0769d8360ea043f469f3a35f6ec204740446#diff-27496895958ca30c47bbb873299a2ad7a7ea1003a9faa96b317250e3b7aa1fefL374 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/757f0769d8360ea043... 3. "are themselves bounties which can be automatically claimed, eg by posing SAT problems to the network" Notwithstanding the points at 1. and 2. it's always been possible to make Bitcoin payments which are trustlessly dependent on solving an arbitrary computer specifiable problem. This works fine today and requires very minimal properties from the system, I provided you with a link to an example demonstration. In that example I used a large sudoku instead of SAT because it's better known to a lay audience, but it's equivalently NP-complete. > particularly when you didn’t bother to provide any evidence for your claim. Despite claims that doing so would be easy I am particularly confused by this remark: What easily sourced claim did I make that I failed to source? I provided you with a link to a concrete demonstration of trading a solution for Bitcoin, which I believe disproves the central thesis of your remark: the thing you say can't be done can be. (Though I still don't agree that it provides any intrinsic value to Bitcoin: The ability to make escrows for information that don't require third parties is a reason that Bitcoin is superior to legacy forms of money, but you can just as well say that for its other positive properties such as the ability to be sent world wide online, the fact that payments are made without an intermediary that can block them, etc. I don't think it's a controversial point that properties make Bitcoin a better form of money compared to some other form of money don't constitute intrinsic value because they're not exclusive.) For your other factual claims 1, 2, and 2a (as I've labeled them): You are asserting something happened which I say is pure fiction. It's generally not easy to provide a citation to prove a negative but if they had happened it would be easy for you to provide supporting material (e.g. the commits making the change in popular bitcoin software).