Topic: Who is in charge of removing this post? - page 2. (Read 594 times)
I guess the good news for you is that your post got increased publicity. People who otherwise wouldn't have seen it have read it, and reflected on your points. This is one of the results from sanctions and censorship - it creates an increased awareness of the issues that you are trying to suppress.
I wouldn't surprised if it was deleted for being off-topic, but without any sort of context its hard to know for sure. Ergo, its removal is in no way "obviously" moderation abuse. Wonder why you didn't include the context.
Here you are, This is the context:For the newbies, who might not know. Drivechain is a software side-chain project by Paul Sztorc, which may help Bitcoin in scaling, privacy, and other "short-comings" that altcoins are trying to "fix". With Drivechain, we wouldn't need altcoins. Everything will be a side-chain of Bitcoin.
Drivechain allows BTC to travel back-and-forth to other software applications (called “sidechains”). Thus, BTC-owners can opt-in to new features or tradeoffs. Those who don’t opt-in, never need to care what any sidechain is doing.
As with the Lightning Network, DC-users move their coins into a “layer-2” – a zone where BTC can change hands an unlimited number of times. Eventually, just the net effect of these transfers is recorded back on layer-1.
Bitcoin Core can’t observe any layer-2 (by design), so we need a way to discourage fraudulent “netting”. LN counters theft via “justice transactions”; DC via forsaken mining revenues. LN-netting is private and instant; DC-netting is public and VERY slow (once per ~3 months).
Key benefits – only obtainable via Drivechain:
Three existential threats to BTC are neutralized – altcoin-competition, hard fork campaigns, and extension block campaigns.
BTC development becomes anti-fragile with respect to CoreDev mistakes.
BTC maintains hashrate security in the long run.
BTC can scale to credit-card level txn-processing – without changing the CONOP of Bitcoin Core. These cheap txns have optimal fungibility and supply vital pretext to the BTC ecosystem.
BTC gains new, experimental abilities, especially P2P event derivatives.
But this is not what the topic is about. It's about criticisms from the past from respected Bitcoin experts, and a revisitation of if they still believe they hold true.
gmaxwell, you said these in the past. With the dawn of Lightning and Liquid side-chains, and observing their own flaws, and short-comings, have you changed your mind from past criticisims on Drivechain?
Your July, 2017 criticism, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-July/014726.html
December, 2018 criticism with Andrew Poelstra, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA1xSe2nLoY&feature=youtu.be&t=5635
Quote
Drivechain allows BTC to travel back-and-forth to other software applications (called “sidechains”). Thus, BTC-owners can opt-in to new features or tradeoffs. Those who don’t opt-in, never need to care what any sidechain is doing.
As with the Lightning Network, DC-users move their coins into a “layer-2” – a zone where BTC can change hands an unlimited number of times. Eventually, just the net effect of these transfers is recorded back on layer-1.
Bitcoin Core can’t observe any layer-2 (by design), so we need a way to discourage fraudulent “netting”. LN counters theft via “justice transactions”; DC via forsaken mining revenues. LN-netting is private and instant; DC-netting is public and VERY slow (once per ~3 months).
Key benefits – only obtainable via Drivechain:
Three existential threats to BTC are neutralized – altcoin-competition, hard fork campaigns, and extension block campaigns.
BTC development becomes anti-fragile with respect to CoreDev mistakes.
BTC maintains hashrate security in the long run.
BTC can scale to credit-card level txn-processing – without changing the CONOP of Bitcoin Core. These cheap txns have optimal fungibility and supply vital pretext to the BTC ecosystem.
BTC gains new, experimental abilities, especially P2P event derivatives.
But this is not what the topic is about. It's about criticisms from the past from respected Bitcoin experts, and a revisitation of if they still believe they hold true.
gmaxwell, you said these in the past. With the dawn of Lightning and Liquid side-chains, and observing their own flaws, and short-comings, have you changed your mind from past criticisims on Drivechain?
Your July, 2017 criticism, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-July/014726.html
December, 2018 criticism with Andrew Poelstra, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA1xSe2nLoY&feature=youtu.be&t=5635
Satisfied Now? Op has included two links, I analyzed both. He has suggested re-considering Drive chain and Ln, I did it. Anything wrong from my side?
I wouldn't surprised if it was deleted for being off-topic, but without any sort of context its hard to know for sure. Ergo, its removal is in no way "obviously" moderation abuse. Wonder why you didn't include the context.
Somebody is getting more aggressive and abuses his power frequently:
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Removing this post is an obvious sign of abusing moderation power because there is nothing offensive or any misinformation presented in there. Somebody is doing what he can to guarantee nothing meaningful is ever said in the technical subforum just a bunch of boring applauses about how 'great' and 'genius' he is! Very disappointing for a forum established by an anonymous believer in decentralization and freedom of speech. Quote
Two-way-pegged so-called "side-chains" is all that Dirvechain is about and it is what LN is doing right now with the exception that the latter doesn't require any form of soft forks, unlike Drivechain. Ironically, they have been working on this layer-2 solution to scalability in Block Stream for years along with LN and when it won the race and deployed, all of a sudden they abandoned the original idea.
What Maxwell says in his long mail is not directly a criticism of the idea but a general understanding of the way an open-source project should be handled, refuting "roadmap" oriented approaches to this issue, like what has ruined Ethereum already. I didn't find any specific "criticism" from his side but for Poelstra it is not the case he is concerned about the security of putting everything in hands of miners "with the current centralized situation in mining bitcoin" which I think Greg Maxwell shares with him because of the latest debate I had with him.
Here is the thing, LN is complicated and liquidity hungry because it relies just on Hashed Time-Locked Contracts, HTLC and non-LN sidechain ideas are abandoned because of the stupid situation with pools and ASICs! And guess what? We are doomed as long as we are trapped with such a discourse: two-way pegged sidechains as a scaling solution for bitcoin.
BTW, I'm working on a one-way sidechain solution that absorbs bitcoin gradually by its own virtue (if ever), stay tuned
What Maxwell says in his long mail is not directly a criticism of the idea but a general understanding of the way an open-source project should be handled, refuting "roadmap" oriented approaches to this issue, like what has ruined Ethereum already. I didn't find any specific "criticism" from his side but for Poelstra it is not the case he is concerned about the security of putting everything in hands of miners "with the current centralized situation in mining bitcoin" which I think Greg Maxwell shares with him because of the latest debate I had with him.
Here is the thing, LN is complicated and liquidity hungry because it relies just on Hashed Time-Locked Contracts, HTLC and non-LN sidechain ideas are abandoned because of the stupid situation with pools and ASICs! And guess what? We are doomed as long as we are trapped with such a discourse: two-way pegged sidechains as a scaling solution for bitcoin.
BTW, I'm working on a one-way sidechain solution that absorbs bitcoin gradually by its own virtue (if ever), stay tuned
Jump to: