Topic: Blockstream wants to rewrite the bitcoin whitepaper (Read 970 times)

In some ways Cobra's proposal was inevitable - he or she just so happens to be in a position to have the fortune or misfortune of being credited with that.  It also took guts to make it.  

All this made me wonder:

1. What would be the best term for an update that includes substituted terms and concepts (e.g., bitcoin as ecash to digital asset)?  Ontological hardfork?  Doctrinal hardfork? Fundamental hardfork?

2. Does it require at least the same level of consensus as is necessary to hardfork the network, if not more? I would presume yes.

3. How should consensus be signaled in such a fork?

it depends in what country you live. most of the countries have updated their Constitutions during the years. yes, you can see the originals in museums but the new ones are enforced.

also you cannot compare a Constitution with a...software. Do you still use Windows 3.1? I think not. Why?

A lot of the things in the Constitution has changed, but the original constitution is still there for everyone to read.... the same goes for the Bitcoin whitepaper... it will always be there in it's original format

and nobody can change that. We are like kids afraid of the dark... we see things that are simply not there. The basic building blocks for this technology cannot change and the fact is that the original document

is still out there... I believe this to be another FUD attempt from the Blockstream haters out there.  

WTF cares about black, yellow, pink paper? all it matters is the cash

BTC is outdated anyway and it should be upgraded. Why do you buy new phones, new computers? keep the ones from 2009.

The tech is advancing. You cannot maintain a software from 2009 without any improvement.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325

The issue in the github thread is that the proposal was not complete because it was/is missing key details - most obviously a draft of a new document. I had some luck engaging w/ Cobra on his/her intentions. I'm hoping he/she comes back to thread to answer the author attribution question.  IMHO - an updated white paper could be appropriate, but only if the byline is accurate and only if the old paper is readily available as a historical resource on bitcoin.org.  I also would really want to see a bulk of the developers sign off on the new paper first (I don't mean sign the paper, a simple grunt in the affirmative would be fine). Other than that, I think this is a little bit of faux drama prompted by folks being on edge about other stuff - which honey badger don't care about.  

They are opinions not FUD. There so many fanatics and cultists here..pffffff.   

Oh my god the FUD is out of control. It was just one guy, that suggested to UPDATE the whitepaper and release it separately, not overwriting the original. And he got 0 support from the rest of blockstream members anyway so what the fuck are those FUDsters even talking about. Just stop it.

Why make a fuss about whitepaper, regardless of who runs it or how it operates the most essential thing there is that bitcoin survives and still operating. People are just making things big deal. If blockstream rewrites the whitepaper it does not matter, if its for the good of bitcoins then I dont disagree. If there will be problems along the way I believe they have a plan B.

the issues with this debate is simple

the github says " Amendments to the Bitcoin paper"
which in itself sounds like a bad title and provoking

also cobra is known to follow in theymos and other blockstream fanboys rhetoric. and has been very vocal that he is on the side of blockstream
so although fanboys like lauda, theymos and cobra are not blockstream or core devs. alot of people call them blockstreamers due to their cultist behavior

here is a prime example when flipping the debate so that blockstreamers see it from their point of view
its much like gmaxwell, lauda calling ANYONE that wants an increase in the blocksize, a "classic"..

yet 99% of people gmaxwell and lauda and everyone else who terms others as "classics" are not actually classic devs.. yet they use that term themselves to pander their own narrative..


but with that being said.
KEEP the original, dont amend or edit or add notes to the original
instead
make something new and found via a different link.. that references the original but using more updated terms, techniques and descriptions

Dishonest fraud on my Bitcointalk? It's more likely than you think!

Blockstream has nothing to do with Cobra's post, I didn't even hear about it until an /r/bitcoin mod asked me to come refute that claim.  The people telling you otherwise are lying to you with a specific intention of manipulating your views.

Huh? We learned about it at a public presentation, same as anyone else... and didn't do anything with it until after Mike Hearn publicly criticized us for not providing more support for it.

If you're thinking things came before, it's because Lightning was constructed out of things already in the development pipeline-- things which were independently useful or even  necessary for the future.

The whitepaper is great and still describes the system (even with segwit!) pretty much exactly as well as it described the very first release!

... Though it didn't describe the very first release all that well, except at the highest possible level.   For example, it says almost nothing about difficulty retargeting, it says nothing about the coin supply schedule, it says nothing about nlocktime or sequence numbers, it says nothing about _script_ at all,  it describes a version of SPV (with alerts) that can't quite be implemented in the protocol we have today.

Of course, it says nothing about the attacks that weren't known at the time, like selfish mining-- or that a constant proportion attacker in a world with exponentially growing hashrate will eventually reorg the whole chain with probability 1.

Should it mention all these things, probably not.  Some of the things it does mention are things that continually cause mistakes and confusion-- e.g. it says nodes prefer the "longest chain" but this is wrong and unworkable, the insufficiently precise statement has made academics dismiss the system as broken, and even cause the developer of a popular SPV wallet software to implement the protocol in a wrong and insecure way.  Yet that could be avoided with a couple word tweak.

But even given all that, it's a remarkably clear and lucid document; which at its level of non-specificness continues to accurately describe the system... and I think it should be left alone.

But I also agree with Cobra's point was that people looking for an overview of how Bitcoin works should probably be directed to something that benefits from eight additional years of experience.  Just getting rid of the @#$@ longest chain misunderstanding would itself be a big improvement.

To be entirely fair, the reason why this has not been discussed on r/bitcoin is likely because this kind of discussion would have been likely removed from r/bitcoin

Also, to be entirely fair, the blockstream core devs started proposing soft forks/BIPs that are necessary for LN to operate long before anyone had even heard of LN, and at a time at which the concept of anyone using any kind of "off chain" transaction would be generally considered to be "not using" bitcoin.

(what is clearly)The goal of the blockstream core devs is to make Bitcoin something very different from what satoshi originally meant it to be and from what it is today.

I think the people that believe that blockstream is behind this proposal believe this because they think that making "small" changes to the Bitcoin whitepaper will set a precedent that allows the whitepaper to be changed, and that the whitepaper would eventually be changed to reflect how Bitcoin operates after LN is implemented, preventing people from questioning why Bitcoin is so different from what Satoshi originally described.   

Yeah it was just a question of time the next FUD and shill campaign will get started.
OP don't be so naive and believe everything you read somewhere!
Cobra has nothing to do with Blockstream or Core!!Not one bit!
Even Gregory Maxwell said the white paper is still relevant.And btcdrak as Core contributor also said that would be ridiculous.
However an updated version of what the Bitcoin network is today is a good idea imo.And this could be add as a second version beside the original white paper.
I mean the network has changed so much the last 7 years, so why not document and publish it.

Incorrect. It is completely misleading, even some people at /r/btc understand it by now:
This is a situation in which one can easily spot the toxicity of r/btc, among other things. Almost nobody supports this proposal, regardless of whether one supports Core, Classic, BU (from what I've seen), yet they had to start this outright lie that Blockstream is trying to rewrite it (which is not the case). How classic.

Although I don't think blockstream is behind this proposal, I do understand why some people might think (or speculate) that blockstream is behind this proposal. Also just because a few blockstream employees are speaking against does not mean that they are not supporting the proposal behind the scenes, nor that others associated with blocktream are not supporting the proposal behind the scenes (just as the opposite happened with the HK agreement).

Regarding the proposal itself, I believe it is a horribly bad idea, and should obviously not get implemented. The number one rule that moderators need to follow is that any posts by satoshi and posts that satoshi was responding to (eg any communication by or with satoshi) should not be touched. Around a year or so ago, a moderator accidentally deleted a post responding to satoshi, that would likely be considered spam-like if posted today (due to signature spam) and there was quite the stir created.

The reason why so many people visit, and read the Bitcoin whitepaper is because they wish to see how satoshi originally described bitcoin. Although some of the terminology is somewhat outdated/confusing, the whitepaper does allow someone to get a general understanding of how Bitcoin works, and can do additional research to get a more firm understanding of how Bitcoin works. Also when engaging in debates about Bitcoin, many people often cite the whitepaper to provide empirical evidence to support their side.

i'm gonna bet this is r/btc bullshit that as ever they ran with and whipped into a frenzy.

i guess there might be a case for a bitcoin whitepaper that provides an outline for the current setup for those who want to dive in. however you wanna look at it, bitcoin's been tweaked and there'll be more developments as the years go by that haven't even been thought of yet.

it seems logical to have a regularly updated one stop shop for an overview. it shouldn't be written by any one faction. it should be about the version of bitcoin that's currently running no matter who worked on it.

there will always be the bitcoin whitepaper and it will live forever.

The motivation behind “Cobra”s call to edit/obfuscate the original satoshi white paper seems clear as water from where I sit:

When you have changed Bitcoin and your views about its terminology so drastically as to actually be contrary to the white paper… you either humble yourself and revert to that original vision, or you scrub that history, literally or practically, from the collective memory.


While the title of this OP is not literally true, it is arguably an accurate depiction of the motivations involved.

“Cobra” - Only seems to pop up to aid the dominance of the Core repo. Scrubbing Coinbase from bitcoin.org, for deviation from the party line, is the last appearance I remember.

David Harding - Bitcoin Core contributor and public supporter “I started re-reading the paper a few minutes ago in order to inform this reply, and the main thing that seems changed so far is terminology---we have different names for many things than those Nakamoto used and we've decoupled some things that started out coupled (like mining and validation).”

Luke-Jr - Blockstream Contractor and major Core contributor. “Sounds reasonable as long as it's clear it isn't the original paper. Maybe an updated HTML version, with a clear link to the original at the top?”

Theymos - The strongest force in the “online community curation”  that reinforces Core dominance over the protocol, and an indispensable tool for making the Blockstream vision of Bitcoin’s future, a reality. “Interesting suggestion. The paper is definitely outdated, and I do often see people saying "just read the whitepaper!" as if the paper is still a good way to learn about Bitcoin.”

Thankfully, hours later, many voices of reason began to flood in, and put a damper on this extreme hubris.

i agree with Lauda, ity just seems like FUD

How exactly does 'Cobra' suggesting changes equal to Blockstream wanting to rewrite the Bitcoin whitepaper? I'm not even surprised by the amount of manipulation and FUD being spread on r/btc. I don't see how Blockstream is relevant here, i.e. this is just another 'shill game'. I would also like to state that I don't agree with this suggestion. Maybe something in the lines of what btcdrak said would be fine, but that's it:
This wouldn't make any sense. The author of this article is braindead apparently or paid by someone.

They can rewrite it or write a new one however and whenever they please. I just hope that they don't write about something that it's not Bitcoin, claiming that it is. If they do this, people will still refer to the original whitepaper... They won't have much success

http://themerkle.com/blockstream-wants-to-rewrite-the-bitcoin-whitepaper/