
Jorge Stolfi explains Bitcoin versus Bitcoin Cash versus Segwit2x - davidgerard
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/10/15/jorge-stolfi-explains-bitcoin-versus-bitcoin-cash-versus-segwit2x/
======
cixx
Anyone who is up to date with what is going on with bitcoin can see this is a
gross oversimplification. But I guess that is to be expected from Jorge Stolfi
who is ideologically opposed to bitcoin and has been on a crusade to try and
stop it or change it into some neutered version of it.

~~~
davidgerard
> gross oversimplification

Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy, rather than
skipping straight to ad hominem:

> ideologically opposed to bitcoin

This is otherwise known as "knowing what he's talking about", which he does to
a sufficient degree that the SEC reached out and asked him for an expanded
comment on the Winklevoss ETF application last year - it's 27 pages that makes
a pretty good critical book on Bitcoin in itself:
[https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-
batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx20163...](https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-
batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-20.pdf)

He knows the area and the details, and you can't credibly claim he doesn't.

~~~
cixx
> Feel free to go into detail about what's wrong with the analogy

Like I said, it's an oversimplification beyond recognition of the actual
situation. It's the equivalent of a 30 second sound bite covering a major
contentious issue that has been going on for years and this "explanation"
doesn't contribute to the understanding of what is going on and hence doesn't
deserve a detailed response.

All I'm saying is he has an agenda and people should keep that in mind when
reading this.

~~~
foepys
I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of. To my knowledge, Jorge Stolfi
is not affiliated with any financial institution. He is a professor of
computer science, not economics or any similar field that you could tie to
banks.

~~~
cixx
> He is a professor of computer science, not economics or any similar field
> that you could tie to banks.

Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments to
the SEC and boasted about it the notorious anti-bitcoin subreddit /r/buttcoin.

> I'm interested what agenda you are speaking of.

Stolfi has been a long time critic of bitcoin because he determined it could
not scale because it is an inefficient system. I can understand that argument
because it is true from a computer science perspective; bitcoin is a broadcast
network where every node has to process all transactions made. No issue there.
But given that fact, doesn't it seem strange then that he is actively
participating (in a positive way) in conversation with the people (bitcoin
cash supporters) who want to make the bitcoin system more inefficient
(broadcast more "redundant" data) by his own definition?

Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential to
fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network (which
is practically not possible with bitcoin cash). Not to mention his use of
derogatory terms like "Blockstream/Core" for the open source project that has
massively increased the performance and capabilities (and thus scaling) of
bitcoin, and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering"
techniques.

Another particular thing with Stofli is in how many ways he thinks bitcoin is
illegal (which has nothing to do with his scaling argument) as you can listen
to in this interview: [https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-
bitcoin...](https://soundcloud.com/bitcoinuncensored/buttcoin-vs-bitcoin-with-
jorge-stolfi-of-rbuttcoin-king-of-the-butters)

I could go on and on with these examples. If you are interested you could take
a look at his comment history on reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi](https://www.reddit.com/user/jstolfi)
(all my examples and more are in there).

His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he can
be trusted for that reason. Gregory Maxwell, one of the most respected and
accomplished bitcoin developers, had this to say about him: "Sometimes you
encounter a person whos opposition means that you're doing something right.
Jorge Stolfi is one of those people."

~~~
davidgerard
> Makes you wonder why he wrote a 27 page document full of economic arguments
> to the SEC

Because the SEC _directly asked him to_ , as an _expert on Bitcoin_.

> Further, he has been a vocal critic of technologies that have to potential
> to fix his main concern with scaling bitcoin, namely the lightning network
> (which is practically not possible with bitcoin cash).

For scaling he does think big blocks are a less bad idea, and that
"sidechains" are hopelessly underspecified. But his objections to the LN are
detailed, and really haven't been addressed by proponents. It's questionable
both conceptually and in what passes for an implementation (after two years of
it being vaporware).

It's entirely unclear how being a "vocal critic" of an idea that's bad on
multiple layers is an "agenda".

>and calling privacy improvements to the system "money laundering" techniques.

Uh, that's pretty much what they are in practice. Bitcoin has enough problems
as a vehicle for money laundering with full history on the chain; making it
less traceable is immediately going to make it more attractive for money
laundering.

"privacy improvements" is very nonspecific. Can you link said "privacy
improvements" and Stolfi's statement about them?

> His actions are very inconsistent with his arguments and I don't think he
> can be trusted for that reason.

I have yet to see an inconsistency.

You _still_ haven't set out the "agenda" you claimed, nor evidence for it.
Your main objection seems to be that you disagree with him, and that he thinks
the LN is bad.

(Emin Gun Sirer is a computer science professor who is similarly disdainful of
the LN, can't wait to hear what his "agenda" is)

~~~
cixx
> Because the SEC directly asked him to, as an expert on Bitcoin.

What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular? What bitcoin related works
has he published? What contributions has he made? What role does he play in
the "expert" community? At what conferences has he spoken? What makes him
qualified to comment on bitcoin economics (or economics in general)?

Anyway, I think this is going nowhere. I have seen this exact discussion many
times and the end result has never been satisfying for either party. Let's
just say the experiment is ongoing and time will tell what the conclusion will
be.

As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring
gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what
his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and
his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong
with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is suspicious
that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone who spends so
much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas on how to make
it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are many bitcoin
skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the experiment. But
Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.

~~~
davidgerard
> What makes him an expert on bitcoin in particular?

It's pretty clear the SEC thought so, given they _directly asked him for
comment_. It's not some self-awarded title we're talking about here. You seem
to be ignoring this point in the hope it will go away.

> As for his agenda, I think he is trying to stagnate progress by pouring
> gasoline on the fire that is the schism in the community. I don't know what
> his exact motivation is, but my suspicion from reading the SEC document and
> his comment history is that he thinks that there is something morally wrong
> with bitcoin. I admit he has some valid technical points, but it is
> suspicious that he is so negative about it. You would expect that someone
> who spends so much time thinking about bitcoin could come up with some ideas
> on how to make it better, but so far he has not produced anything. There are
> many bitcoin skeptics out there and I don't mind that, it's part of the
> experiment. But Stolfi is a special case, he is extremely determined.

You're taking disagreement as malice. It's possible for something to be trash
and yet fascinating - that's the difference between "interesting" and
"useful". You're coming across like a creationist trying to make sense of why
someone would be an atheist. "They must just hate God!"

I think you need to consider the option that he means what he says, and also
the possibility that bitcoin isn't all that. (The LN _certainly_ isn't.)

~~~
cixx
> You're coming across like a creationist trying to make sense of why someone
> would be an atheist.

Yeah I get that. I would probably think that as well if I read my previous
from your perspective. Especially since there's a lot of paranoid/"conspiracy-
esque" thinking going on in the crypto scene. I am fully aware of that and
even I am not that confident that bitcoin/crypto will be a success. I too am
very critical of many aspects.

But you have a point. I take back my statement that he has an agenda and is
trying to disrupt progress. It is certainly possible that someone would do
that (divide and conquer is a good strategy), but that is probably not the
case. I do however think Stolfi has gone a bit too far down the rabbit hole
that he kinda lost track of what his reason was for going there in the first
place. You've got to admit, it's kind of peculiar that a guy like him is
hanging around with all those /r/btc folks. To me, /r/btc has the right
intentions but they are still stuck in a way of thinking like most bitcoiners
did in the 2013 era (mass retail adoption, people spending bitcoin directly
etc). What is he even doing there? Don't get me wrong, /r/bitcoin is shit too,
they just (partly) moved on to to a new unrealistic "vision".

Anyway, Stolfi probably has just found a community of like-minded people that
he can discuss a topic with that interests/fascinates him. He has a highly
relevant background and can articulate points well which makes him a popular
person in that community. Maybe he just enjoys all the attention he's getting
a bit too much as the /r/buttcoin superstar. Let's hope he doesn't get
addicted to the fame :)

Well, I'm rambling and I need to sleep. Cheers.

~~~
davidgerard
Apparently I'm the /r/buttcoin superstar now. (killhamster, Queen of all
Buttcoiners, has left the sticky for my book up there for two months now ...)
At least I can give my reasons, i.e. I'm a horrible sneer culturist.

------
wheelerwj
why is an explanation from r/buttcoin on HN?

~~~
davidgerard
'cos it's concise, clear and from a computer science professor who follows and
knows the area, one would think

------
arzt
You'd hope the chain with the most utility wins out.

~~~
zzalpha
They'll all continue. Who wants one bubble when you can have three? The last
fork resulted in people doubling their coin holdings. Another fork means
another doubling and people will buy/sell on that chain, too. Once again, the
current market participants will by extracting wealth from new market
participants.

~~~
wereHamster
Except that Bitcoin Cash is pretty much worthless (~300USD) compared to BTC
(5500USD). I _wish_ my money had doubled, it's closer to a 5-6% increase
instead.

~~~
zzalpha
To be pedantic, I said doubling their coin, not doubling their USD equivalent.
And who's gonna complain about 5-6% in free gains?

And that's assuming speculation doesn't continue to inflate the price of those
alternative coins.

