Author

Topic: Joi Ito: "My view on the current situation of Bitcoin and the Blockchain" (Read 580 times)

legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 2472
https://JetCash.com
Thanks for that. My personal take is that if you don't like Bitcoin or its evolution precess, you should clear off and start a different system if you think you know better.

translation.. im guessing..
if you dont like blockstreams dominance and agenda fuck off..

because looking over your many different posts it seems your drinking the blockstream kool-aid and think they deserve to be the CEO of bitcoin. and that bitcoin should not be open to anyone who wants to do things.. the very quote above (untranslated) proves your mindset.

i think its time you take a second look at bitcoin as a separate thing, that is supposed to be trustless and decentralized and not controlled by one entity..

Maybe I'm missing something then. Please explain why you think I am supporting blockstream? I haven't even visited their site, that's how much I know about them. I think that core have done a good job, and I think that the 2Mb solution is proposed by a bunch of bullies, who are trying to screw up Bitcoin. Please explain why I am wrong.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
good read, thanks for the link.
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
That article is rather lame attempt at rewriting history. The development of the Internet protocols was 100% (or even 200%) unlike the development of Bitcoin. Not only there's no correlation, the correlation is close to the negative maximum (-1.0). My guess is that the guy knew he's writing bullshit when he put competition in quotation marks:
I remember when there were only a handful of people in the world who really understood Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and we had to hunt them down and share them with our "competitors" when we were setting up PSINet in Japan.

Fortunately the history of the Internet RFCs is easy to look up:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?stream_name=Legacy&page=All

You don't need to really dig deep. Just read the titles and maybe the entire RFC 1025: "TCP and IP Bake Off". Here's a fragment, about 1.5 page:

Procedure

   This is the procedure for the TCP and IP Bake Off.  Each implementor
   of a TCP and IP is to perform the following tests and to report the
   results.  In general, this is done by using a test program or user
   Telnet program to open connections to your own or other TCP
   implementations.

   Some test are made more interesting by the use of a "flakeway".  A
   flakeway is a purposely flakey gateway.  It should have control
   parameters that can be adjusted while it is running to specify a
   percentage of datagrams to be dropped, a percentage of datagrams to
   be corrupted and passed on, and a percentage of datagrams to be
   reordered so that they arrive in a different order than sent.

   Many of the following apply for each distinct TCP contacted (for
   example, in the Middleweight Division there is a possibility of 20
   points for each other TCP in the Bake Off).

   Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced.  No points will be awarded if
   the checksum test is disabled.

      Featherweight Division

         1 point for talking to yourself (opening a connection).

         1 point for saying something to yourself (sending and receiving
         data).

         1 point for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
         connection without crashing).

         2 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
         TCP.

         5 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.

      Middleweight Division

         2 points for talking to someone else (opening a connection).

         2 points for saying something to someone else (sending and
         receiving data).

         2 points for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
         connection without crashing).

         4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
         TCP.

         10 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.

      Heavyweight Division

         10 points for being able to talk to more than one other TCP at
         the same time (multiple connections open and active
         simultaneously with different TCPs).

         10 points for correctly handling urgent data.

         10 points for correctly handling sequence number wraparound.

         10 points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze"
         packet (AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test
         segment, et al.).  That is, correctly handle a segment with the
         maximum combination of features at once (e.g., a SYN URG PUSH
         FIN segment with options and data).

         30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows.  (That is,
         operate a connection until one TCP or the other crashes, the
         surviving TCP has KOed the other.  Legal blows are segments
         that meet the requirements of the specification.)

         20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows.  (Dirty
         blows are segments that violate the requirements of the
         specification.)

         10 points for showing your opponents checksum test is faulty or
         disabled.

legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
"Unfortunately, the wild growth of Bitcoin and now "the Blockchain" has caught this community off guard from a governance perspective, leaving the core developers of Bitcoin unable to interface effectively with the commercial interests whose businesses depend on scaling the technology. When asked "can you scale this?" They said, "we'll do the best we can." That wasn't good enough for many, especially those who don't understand the architecture or the nature of what is going on inside of Bitcoin."

They have never said, "We cannot do it" or "No, it is not scalable" they said, "Yes, It is possible, but it is not needed now" If you listen to the developers who wants to take control over Bitcoin development, they will say "It is needed yesterday" or "Our solution will solve the scalability problem"

Anything is possible and all the developers in the scene right now can make changes to improve scalability, but they want to do this, when it is needed.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1017
Hmmm.  I don't think that I would underestimate the virtues of new talent, some of which weren't even born in 1990.  Case in point: Vitalik Buterin; his resume is astounding and he's barely 21!  Some of these guys were born on the internet and now we're seeing some of this creativity come to life.  We can all thank bitcoin but....it's, well, becoming antiquated compared to what's currently being developed....I wouldn't underestimate R3CEV either....While some of us are wrestling for control over established ledgers, others are pounding away at building new more innovative platforms....so....it's not really old school anymore my friend.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
Thanks for that. My personal take is that if you don't like Bitcoin or its evolution precess, you should clear off and start a different system if you think you know better.

translation.. im guessing..
if you dont like blockstreams dominance and agenda fuck off..

because looking over your many different posts it seems your drinking the blockstream kool-aid and think they deserve to be the CEO of bitcoin. and that bitcoin should not be open to anyone who wants to do things.. the very quote above (untranslated) proves your mindset.

i think its time you take a second look at bitcoin as a separate thing, that is supposed to be trustless and decentralized and not controlled by one entity..
legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 2472
https://JetCash.com
Thanks for that. My personal take is that if you don't like Bitcoin or its evolution precess, you should clear off and start a different system if you think you know better.
hero member
Activity: 1008
Merit: 510
This is important info.  Thanks for posting this and making us aware of this potential problem.  Maybe more developers will step forward.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1003
I don't really buy that people are dropping out of developing bitcoin because it is growing faster than expected.
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/02/22/my-view-on-the-.html

Definitely worth to read!
No it's a must.SO READ IT!!!!
It's a wall of text so take your time.
I've picked out my personal highlights.

Quote
[...]I'm worried about the current situation of Bitcoin and the Blockchain.

Partially driven by the overinvestment in the space, and partially by the fact that Bitcoin is much more about money than the Internet ever was, it is experiencing a crisis that didn't really have any parallels in the early days of the Internet. Nonetheless, the formation of the Internet offers some important lessons -- most importantly, on the question of the talent and knowledge pool. In those early days, and at some layers maybe even still today, there were only a very small number of people who had the background, brain type and personality to understand some of the core elements that made the Internet work. I remember when there were only a handful of people in the world who really understood Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and we had to hunt them down and share then with our "competitors" when we were setting up PSINet in Japan.

It's very similar today with Bitcoin and the Blockchain. There are a small number of people who understand cryptography, systems, networks and code and are capable of understanding the Bitcoin software code. Most of them are working on Bitcoin, while some are working on Ethereum and other "related" systems and a few more are scattered around the world in other places. It's a community including some who have been around since the 90s, before the Internet, going to crazy conferences like the Financial Cryptography conference. Like any free and open-source software community on the Internet, it's a bunch of people who know each other and mostly, though not always, respect each other, but which fundamentally holds a near monopoly on talent.

Unfortunately, the wild growth of Bitcoin and now "the Blockchain" has caught this community off guard from a governance perspective, leaving the core developers of Bitcoin unable to interface effectively with the commercial interests whose businesses depend on scaling the technology. When asked "can you scale this?" They said, "we'll do the best we can." That wasn't good enough for many, especially those who don't understand the architecture or the nature of what is going on inside of Bitcoin.

Many companies that are used to making decisions around less complicated systems -- like building a website or buying and running Enterprise Resource Planning systems -- felt they could either just hire other engineers who would listen to the customer needs better or became so annoyed with the, "we can't promise but we'll try" attitude of the core developers that they lowered their standards and went with whomever would promise to meet their demands.

The future of Bitcoin, decentralized ledgers and other Blockchain-like projects depends on this community. Many people call them "Bitcoin Core" as if they are some sort of company you can fire or a random set of developers with skills that you can just train others to acquire. They're not. They're more like artists, scientists and precision engineers who have built a shared culture and language. To look for another group of people to do what they do would be like asking web designers to launch a space shuttle. You can't FIRE a community and, statistically speaking, the people working on the Bitcoin ARE the community.

If you try to build "something like Bitcoin but better!" it will probably turn out insecure, underwhelming, and will go against the the fundamental principles that give Bitcoin the potential to be as impactful to banking, law and society as the Internet has been to media, communication, and commerce.

[...]I fear that we'll build something that at the application layer looks like what Bitcoin and the Blockchain promised, but under the hood is just the same old transaction system with no interoperability, no distributed system, no trustless networks, no extensibility, no open innovation, nothing except maybe a bit of efficiency increased from new technology.

[...]Lastly, but most importantly, we're burning out those developers who we most need to be focused on the code and the architecture. Many are dropping out or threatening to drop out. Many are completely discouraged and depleted by the public debate. Even if you believe that we will eventually have a new generation of financial cryptographers, you can't train them without this community. We have many smart people on all sides of this debate and I think that most of them are doing what they are doing with good intentions. However, those of us on the sidelines fanning the flames, making uninformed and provocative statements and fundamentally disrespecting and undervaluing the contribution of the Bitcoin community to the past, present and future of this possibly world-changing innovation, are doing harm.
Jump to: