Author: Gregory Maxwell 2017-07-12 00:07:51
Published on: 2017-07-12T00:07:51+00:00
In an email exchange, Paul Sztorc criticized the latest proposal for scaling bitcoin. He claimed that it merely repeated what its predecessor had done, and that it was harming the community's progress while creating more confusion around control versus collaboration. Furthermore, he believed that the demand for increased capacity from many people was potentially less than completely earnest. In response, Adam Back argued that he had addressed concerns about the security model and mining centralization in his previous posts. However, Sztorc disagreed and said that many people still don't believe these concerns have been addressed. The conversation then shifted to the topic of roadmaps. Back defended his proposal, saying that without a roadmap, outsiders would have almost no idea at all what is being worked on, what effect it will have, or when it might be ready. Sztorc disagreed with the characterization, arguing that a roadmap implies things that none of them can promise except for their own efforts, such as completion of implementations, success of experiments, adoption, etc. He also pointed out that they lack reliable communication channels, which makes it difficult to explain things in terms the audience understands. Finally, Sztorc criticized Back for not seeking input from top contributors before publishing his proposal. Back defended himself by saying that he had talked to other developers besides Luke-jr and that he had researched widely. However, Sztorc countered that he hadn't talked to most/all of Matt Corallo, Wladimir, Pieter Wuille, Alex Morcos, etc., who were doing most of the work of actually building the system.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T03:17:01.947381+00:00