4 ms·

Gavin's post is not innuendo; he's just trying to be diplomatic in my view. However, I could not agree more with deepblueocean: figuring out if and under which

by cs702 13y ago

Gavin's post is not innuendo; he's just trying to be diplomatic in my view. However, I could not agree more with deepblueocean: figuring out if and under which conditions the Bitcoin network will tend toward an equilibrium in which all players follow the rules should be a priority for researchers. It's the biggest question mark hanging over Bitcoin's future. I also agree that the Eyal/Sirer paper seems naive about markets. -- PS. This thread should be at the top of this page. (Currently, another thread I started is at the top; I hope this thread shoots up past it.)

stcredzero 13y ago
The question of whether the current Bitcoin ruleset is incentive compatible strikes me as the most important Bitcoin research question: it answers whether Bitcoin, as a system, will continue to be stable over the long term. Is a Democratic Republic incentive compatible over the long term?
tptacek 13y ago
If you'd like to cast Andresen's innuendo in the best possible light, I won't object. But my assessment of his post is descriptive, not normative. When you respond to a detailed technical report by criticizing the way it was presented to the press, then suggest technical flaws without actually explaining what those flaws are, that is innuendo. Maybe you feel innuendo is warranted. Whether the mining game in Bitcoin is or isn't tenable over the long term doesn't much matter to me, because I'm one of those people who feel Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, and has a spot price today that represents in part irrational excitement about Bitcoin and in part a cynical scalping of that excitement by speculators. Bitcoin could be the most solid imaginable distributed cryptosystem and I'd still have problems with it. I was motivated to comment about Andresen's post because I was also struck by his Reddit comment on the ES paper, where it seemed that random laypeople on Reddit were better prepared to discuss the technical implications of the paper than he was.
- cs702 13y ago
  I see your point, but still doubt that Gavin intended his post as innuendo. My assessment is that he's not yet ready to respond to the paper with carefully written, fully-thought-out, detailed technical counter-arguments, but wanted to assuage the Bitcoin community and address all those "sensationalistic headlines" put forth by "reporters on deadline" with an 'official response' as soon as possible.

by cs702 13y ago

stcredzero 13y ago

The question of whether the current Bitcoin ruleset is incentive compatible strikes me as the most important Bitcoin research question: it answers whether Bitcoin, as a system, will continue to be stable over the long term. Is a Democratic Republic incentive compatible over the long term?

tptacek 13y ago

If you'd like to cast Andresen's innuendo in the best possible light, I won't object. But my assessment of his post is descriptive, not normative. When you respond to a detailed technical report by criticizing the way it was presented to the press, then suggest technical flaws without actually explaining what those flaws are, that is innuendo. Maybe you feel innuendo is warranted. Whether the mining game in Bitcoin is or isn't tenable over the long term doesn't much matter to me, because I'm one of those people who feel Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, and has a spot price today that represents in part irrational excitement about Bitcoin and in part a cynical scalping of that excitement by speculators. Bitcoin could be the most solid imaginable distributed cryptosystem and I'd still have problems with it. I was motivated to comment about Andresen's post because I was also struck by his Reddit comment on the ES paper, where it seemed that random laypeople on Reddit were better prepared to discuss the technical implications of the paper than he was.

cs702 13y ago
I see your point, but still doubt that Gavin intended his post as innuendo. My assessment is that he's not yet ready to respond to the paper with carefully written, fully-thought-out, detailed technical counter-arguments, but wanted to assuage the Bitcoin community and address all those "sensationalistic headlines" put forth by "reporters on deadline" with an 'official response' as soon as possible.