Jorge Stolfi explains Bitcoin versus Bitcoin Cash versus Segwit2x
davidgerard.co.uk
davidgerard.co.uk
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/batsbzx20163...
He knows the area and the details, and you can't credibly claim he doesn't.
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.
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...
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 (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."
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)
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.
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.)
Yeah I get that. I would probably think that as well if I read my previous from your perspective. Especially since there's a lot of paranoid/"conspiracy-esque" thinking going on in the crypto scene. I am fully aware of that and even I am not that confident that bitcoin/crypto will be a success. I too am very critical of many aspects.
But you have a point. I take back my statement that he has an agenda and is trying to disrupt progress. It is certainly possible that someone would do that (divide and conquer is a good strategy), but that is probably not the case. I do however think Stolfi has gone a bit too far down the rabbit hole that he kinda lost track of what his reason was for going there in the first place. You've got to admit, it's kind of peculiar that a guy like him is hanging around with all those /r/btc folks. To me, /r/btc has the right intentions but they are still stuck in a way of thinking like most bitcoiners did in the 2013 era (mass retail adoption, people spending bitcoin directly etc). What is he even doing there? Don't get me wrong, /r/bitcoin is shit too, they just (partly) moved on to to a new unrealistic "vision".
Anyway, Stolfi probably has just found a community of like-minded people that he can discuss a topic with that interests/fascinates him. He has a highly relevant background and can articulate points well which makes him a popular person in that community. Maybe he just enjoys all the attention he's getting a bit too much as the /r/buttcoin superstar. Let's hope he doesn't get addicted to the fame :)
Well, I'm rambling and I need to sleep. Cheers.
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.)
And that's assuming speculation doesn't continue to inflate the price of those alternative coins.
So the question would be "which is most useful for speculation?" You'd need to think about exchanges, exchangeability (to other cryptos or to actualmoney), liquidity, how manipulable the price is (which could be an advantage or disadvantage for these purposes) ...
Nobody writes articles about people like me because that story doesn't attract clicks.