A friend sent me the following question by email:
Is CSW right that BCH wouldn't allow to store tx offline for 50 years because it would become invalid?
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/why-the-protocol-is-set-7db4f764c97c
I wrote the following reply to him. I've expanded on it a bit and shared it here in-case it is of value to some others.
My Reply
I haven't read the full article, but the answer to just your question is: yes. BCH probably wouldn't allow you to store a transaction offline or 50 years.
However: I personally have never felt comfortable with the idea of storing a tx offline anyway and I have never suggested others should do so. I think it's quite reasonable to assume the protocol may change at some point invaliding some old, offline (not committed to the chain) transactions because of things like:
- a cryptographic algorithm used by Bitcoin (BCH) being broken and thus needing to be replaced. A balance being spent by an offline tx in this scenario could either become vulnerable to being spent by an attacker or could become invalidated after a grace period has passed to avoid a sudden massive period of currency, monetary inflation that occurs when a miner sweeps up a large amount of vulnerable funds which were not moved from accounts (UTXOs) which were known to be vulnerable.
- a large change being made to how transactions are constructed in order to allow Bitcoin to scale better to fulfil the monetary, transaction demands of the people of the world.
Also: many of the reasons a person might want to keep a tx offline, can be solved using an on-chain transaction which makes use of advanced scripting features. BCH has actually had a new op code added called something like check-data-sig-verify, that allows you to commit a tx to the chain, but you can only spend it if you create a specially crafted transaction which contains some very specific signed data. This specific op code feature can be used to solve many of the problems previously "solved" by keeping offline transactions.
CSW often speaks truth, but he delivers with it a poisoned payload.
It is my personal opinion that the agenda of CSW is to destroy the Bitcoin project by going in the extreme opposite direction that the Bitcoin Core guys went. IE instead of tiny, floppy-disk style blocks, BSv is directed towards having absurdly and impractically large blocks to the point where people are literally backing up their data to the blockchain. Instead of Bitcoin Core style 'my grandma should be mining', BSv is directed towards having a small number of super nodes to do all the work. Instead of the anti-business, almost communist style attitude that many Bitcoin Core cult members have, CSW & Co appear to have positioned themselves at the extreme polar opposite of the rainbow spectrum and decided to take a pro-mega-corporation attitude where the small business owner who doesn't get involved in crony capitalism, legal domination (through patents and other aggressive legal infrastructure), and doesn't desire to conquer the world by force has little chance at competing.
As with many things in life the answer lies in the green part of the rainbow spectrum; somewhere in the middle where a wise person takes the best of both sides and never leans so far to one side that they fall over.
I think BCH is a little closer to the middle than either BTC or BSv.
CSW also seems obsessed with arbitrary, legal compliance. "Arbitrary" because he is selecting the arbitrary rules of arbitrary governments which he wishes to help impose on "Bitcoin" users. In particular, for some reason he is very focused on gambling & money laundering. Especially strange when you consider he claims to have been involved in the gambling industry in the past (IIRC) and he has been accused by the Australian government of fraud. I'm not saying that Australian government are correct or right. It's just odd that he seems so in favour of arbitrary, government restrictions when he has been targeted by them himself.
Having said all that, I wish I could simply say that BCH is the future and the one clear path to economic sovereignty! Sadly I no longer believe that. At least not for now. BCH, BTC and BSv all have one thing in common. They are kingdoms.
- BTC is ruled by Bitcoin Core and ultimately has Greg Maxwell at the throne. At least: Greg is the front man.
- BSv is ruled by nChain/Bitcoin SV and ultimately has CSW at the throne. At least: CSW is the front man.
- BCH appears to currently be ruled by Bitcoin ABC and ultimately has deadalnix at the throne, as he is the lead developer of the project, has commit rights and is the public face of the project.
Unlike with BTC and BSv, I don't think BCH has a dark, hidden hand behind it that is attempting to direct us towards failure to achieve the original vision of Bitcoin. I think it is merely misguidedness & human ego which has led to Bitcoin ABC taking up this very vulnerable position. It's not even just their fault. The miners do not know their own sovereignty and the role they are supposed to play in order to make Bitcoin a truly permissionless, decentralized, censorship resistant, p2p electronic cash system. We (as economic users of BCH and as miners) have even been offered a path towards decentralized governance by Bitcoin Unlimited. So far it seems "we" have chosen not to take it.
When the vulnerable central point of power within BCH is eventually co-opted by outside forces, the failure of the Bitcoin project will not be on Bitcoin ABC; it will be on us.
If it seems like I am repeating this last point over and over, it's because I am. I see nothing more important than this issue. This issue is...
- more important than how we order transactions (CTOR vs TTOR vs LORDZOR vs WOODSAW)
- It's more important than exactly how Bitcoin scales (paraphrasing what Gavin Andresen said: don't let far-in-the-future, potential problems stop us from solving present day problems. Let's keep moving towards success (p2p cash) and we'll solve the real problems as we get to them or get close to them. He also said something like "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough". That guy is a wise man).
- This issue is more important than what stupid shit the Bitcoin Core cult members are repeating or who CSW is currently suing.
If Bitcoin (BCH) has a single, centralized point of officialdom, it will be attacked. Anyone who is even vaguely awake, slightly knowledgeable of how the current fiat money systems works and mildly aware of the history of BTC will know what I just said to be true.
Good luck to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment