Thread: Language matters.
It's easy to manipulate self-selected metrics
.
It's easy to manipulate self-selected metrics
.
In the above, we see a selection of points chosen by Ver to prove BCH = Bitcoin, by means of comparing each chain's "Bitcoin-ness"
1. The problem starts with the fact that "Bitcoin-ness" is not what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. It's an introduced term that we are supposed to take at face value.
By not pointing this out, it's easy to fall into accepting it as such.
By not pointing this out, it's easy to fall into accepting it as such.
2. The metrics themselves are weighed, but on what grounds? Why is "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" given 5x more weight than "Chain of digital signatures"?
2.1 While we are at it: why do almost all metrics have the same weight, but two others 5x (!) more?
No explanation is given and no rationale.
Clear definition, please!
No explanation is given and no rationale.
Clear definition, please!
3. Some metrics have highly contextual parameters.
What is meant by "low", "fast", "reliable"? In what context and compared to what? As it is, anyone can make anything of it.
As it stands now, we cannot discuss anything about them. Again: define.
What is meant by "low", "fast", "reliable"? In what context and compared to what? As it is, anyone can make anything of it.
As it stands now, we cannot discuss anything about them. Again: define.
Regarding opcodes, Bitcoin already has them.
The table is just simply wrong here.
You can find them here: en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
As you can also see on that page, some have been disabled.
Some are being reenabled in the coming BCH hardfork: github.com/shadders/uahf-…
Misleading.
The table is just simply wrong here.
You can find them here: en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
As you can also see on that page, some have been disabled.
Some are being reenabled in the coming BCH hardfork: github.com/shadders/uahf-…
Misleading.
Chain of digital signatures is a long standing talking point about Segwit basically creating a chain that doesn't have these anymore.
I've not found a neat article about this, so I will leave one for each side
medium.com/@dexx/debunkin…
coindesk.com/the-risks-of-b…
Decide yourselves
I've not found a neat article about this, so I will leave one for each side
medium.com/@dexx/debunkin…
coindesk.com/the-risks-of-b…
Decide yourselves
On-chain scaling:
This is the satoshi mail referred to: satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptog…
Frankly, I think reading Satoshi's texts as prescriptives is a huge mistake. No one can predict the future accurately. To use them as a measure of soundness without proof is reckless.
This is the satoshi mail referred to: satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptog…
Frankly, I think reading Satoshi's texts as prescriptives is a huge mistake. No one can predict the future accurately. To use them as a measure of soundness without proof is reckless.
0-confs:
Here's the link: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topi…
Sound nice, but keep in mind that they only are good for transactions where you want or need "good-enough" checking. They are always less safe, so not useful when transaction larger amounts which are juicy targets.
Here's the link: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topi…
Sound nice, but keep in mind that they only are good for transactions where you want or need "good-enough" checking. They are always less safe, so not useful when transaction larger amounts which are juicy targets.
In conclusion: the language here is just too vague.
The table only looks "awesome" for BCH at a very cursory glance.
With just minimal scrutiny, it looks a lot less of an open and shut case, because it isn't.
The table only looks "awesome" for BCH at a very cursory glance.
With just minimal scrutiny, it looks a lot less of an open and shut case, because it isn't.
I still am wondering why Ver is only appealing to people who either don't look or seem to want to confirm what they believe.
BCH has some smart people in it. Surely they also must be shaking their heads at the fast ones he tries to pull.
BCH has some smart people in it. Surely they also must be shaking their heads at the fast ones he tries to pull.
I'd much rather see BCH being discussed on its own merits, without the silly "We are Bitcoin" rhetoric.
If it works and attracts people on merits, then it will win, won't it? Even without the bloody name and misleading.
If it works and attracts people on merits, then it will win, won't it? Even without the bloody name and misleading.
