RT @lopp: @ercwl@BitMEXResearch More precise terminology would be helpful; trying to fit a multivariable issue into two buckets is what causes confusion. I think @Truthcoin made one of the best attempts at creating a more precise model, though it hasn't become standard terminology. https://t.co/RHquog8zwi
@ercwl@BitMEXResearch More precise terminology would be helpful; trying to fit a multivariable issue into two buckets is what causes confusion. I think @Truthcoin made one of the best attempts at creating a more precise model, though it hasn't become standard terminology. https://t.co/RHquog8zwi
when Carol wants to send money to Alice, Carol may want to use SegWit (which offers a fee discount under many conditions), which will put pressure on Alice to upgrade, so that she can validate these kinds of incoming payments.
This topic of "upgrade pressure" is one of the major confusing claims by anti-segwit people (which do not include Mr. Sztorc), so the above consequences should be more fully explained.
First off, Alice can get money from Carol without upgrading, whether or not Carol chooses to sign her balance over via segwit. Alice hands Carol an old address, and Carol sends the money. No problem.
Second, Alice will know she has received the transaction once it is mined into a block. Her software will tally it up correctly.
That means that Alice will only have the "loudness" of her software's incomplete assessment of Carol's segwit-signed offering during the zero-confirmation window.
Ideally, Carol would ask Alice whether the zero-confirm window is an issue, and whether Alice would like to see her input amount reduced by the mining fee Carol would have to pay to sign without segwit. It's Alice's moral choice which of the following is the "noisier" externality: negotiating a higher mining fee with Carol, uncertainty during zero-confirm window, or working to upgrade.
Bravo! Better terminology is to be encouraged. The main takeaway is that "soft fork" is a very sloppy term.
I was however disappointed with the hard fork analysis, as the author ironically argues circularly in reasoning that a spinoff contains a circularity. The circularity the author introduces is in the definition of "Bitcoin." He doesn't seem to understand the fundamental point that Bitcoin just is the ledger that reflects all current bitcoin holders' balances - including all copies of that ledger. CLAMS is technically an (extremely) tiny percentage of Bitcoin from the perspective of then-BTC-holders, because it contains a tiny sliver of the market cap (times its already-small spinoff allocation to BTC holders).
Any spinoff/hardfork that were to gain an appreciable market cap, and not be divested from by BTC holders, would indeed constitute a piece of Bitcoin. That this scenario may be highly unlikely shouldn't distract from the fact that should it occur the foregoing would be true. If you will say this other ledger won't have network effect, that again only serves to make it an unlikely scenario, rather than impugn the basic logic.
The stakeholders decides what Bitcoin is; if there is a split into two ledger-copies and there is any controversy, the market prices one higher and thereby grants it an overwhelming likelihood of inheriting the Bitcoin name. Better to think in terms of the World Wide Ledger than in terms of Bitcoin. Hardforking preserves the ledger and lets the market choose which protocol is to govern it (you can disagree and go your own way with your no-hard-forks Bitcoin ledger-copy, but note that it may be at very low market cap, defeating the store of value function that was the point of Bitcoin in the first place).
> He doesn't seem to understand the fundamental point that Bitcoin just is the ledger that reflects all current bitcoin holders' balances - including all copies of that ledger.
I don't think Bitcoin is "just the ledger". I think it is also the rules for updating the ledger.
There was a time (between time1="when Satoshi wrote up the whitepaper and code" and time2="when Satoshi turned on the software and mined the first block") when Bitcoin had no ledger at all. Would you really say that, during this time, Bitcoin *had no definition*? That seems obviously untrue.
> CLAMS is technically an (extremely) tiny percentage of Bitcoin from the perspective of then-BTC-holders
This is technically incorrect. The clams distribution was 4.6 per existing _address_ above a certain lower end value including ltc and doge addresses. 100 addresses with 1 BTC inherited 460 clams, vs one 100 BTC addy getting only 4.6.