TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
From Twitter so far: 67% support! Still early, though.
Budget Proposal: Peter Todd to review Instant X?
- Thread starter JuanSGalt
- Start date
On the forum the real vote count is 13 Yes - 17 No. Two people voted Yes by mistake.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
Cool. Looks like the desire is there to review it.
Switching gears, who would be a reasonable candidate to review InstantX?
stan.distortion
Well-known member
Anyone suitable to do a review that's found fault with Peter Todds work in the past? It didn't sound like a bad idea at first but yeah, that wouldn't be an unbiased review.
JuanSGalt
Well-known member
Legitimacy, a lot of people are mistified by instantx and the maximilianist bitcoin folk are in denial.
DASH's privacy is great, but that along is not good enough sadly, not with Adam Back working on confidential txs for Bitcoin. Instant x is essential for DASH as money, if this is the direction we want to go. If so, then we need make sure everyone gets how well it works.
Confidential tx requires bigger block sizes, much bigger. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ml3y5/an_open_question_to_adam_back/cvg9foh
Not sure this will happen anytime soon given how stuck Bitcoin development is and how reluctant Core is to increase blocksize. 2MB won't be enough to implement this I'm afraid.
InstantX amounts will be increased in the next few months. Maybe wait until then for a review.
DashStoreIO
New member
Looks like a $1500 money grab. Also from the comments here seems like he would try to discredit the technology. DASH is doing just fine without it.
That's because you didn't specify that he wanted paying to do it!
Interesting idea. But if we want to compete with the Bitcoin alongside the line -- "DASH is better money than BTC" -- to have one of the main contributors to bitcoin's open source code to review our own advanced feature, it's like having Microsoft evaluating Linux at the latter's early stages.
Moreover, if Dash is superior to Bitcoin in so many ways, as we all like to claim, to have their developer evaluating ours is like having one of Yugo engineers evaluating Mercedes-Benz Formula 1 car. A wrong thing to do.
Moreover, if Dash is superior to Bitcoin in so many ways, as we all like to claim, to have their developer evaluating ours is like having one of Yugo engineers evaluating Mercedes-Benz Formula 1 car. A wrong thing to do.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
True, 140 characters has its limitations. :wink:
I totally agree
+ wrong timing
the team is working on 12.1 (many improvements in the code) there is no point doing anything before that !
edit
this will take some time , incl testnet and all
Last edited by a moderator:
T
toknormal
Guest
I think it's useful to stop and try to really understand the motivations and priorities behind the divergence of vision here.
The Adam Back/Maxwell (Bitcoin core) camp are trying to preserve the consensus integrity that bitcoin has by not implementing any hardforks. They see hardforks as creating an "altcoin" (which by a broad definition is true). They will solve the "0-conf" problem with the Lightning network, large block sizes with sidechains and privacy equally with sidechains.
Reading this guy's feed provides quite a good account of what they're trying to do: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1876;sa=showPosts
On the other hand, Dash is doing exactly the opposite. Getting the blockchain to scale natively and dealing with fungibility natively. Both visions are probably equally viable and consistent with their priorities. Bitcoin is concentrating on "staying bitcoin" and its whole roadmap is geared to that. Dash is focused on developing a coherent blockchain with a high level of native monetary fidelity.
Any "review" that gets done needs to take account of these priorities otherwise it's useless because if you measure the progress towards one objective in the context of another, then you just end up with misplaced conclusions.
For example, no one seems to have noticed the gaping disparity in outcome when Dash is given a monetary appraisal as distinct from a technological one. Peter Todd called Dash "snake oil" meanwhile those two monetary researchers in the "Proof of Labour" thread who've devoted the last 4 years of their lives to thinking about monetary models called Dash the "most advanced" cryptocurrency out there. Why the grand canyon of a gap in views ? Because of different priorities.
I sure know which one meant more to me. The review that matters has already been done and it's in that other thread.
Last edited:
Sure, "we need to make sure everyone gets how well it works," but having Peter Todd "reviewing the code" is not the way to go. (should you wish to, please refer to my previous post on the topic and to toknormal musings above)
As oaxaca hinted, I'd rather have Peter Todd keep telling us InsantX is a snake oil and you, Juan, debating him. We can have a free debate, say over at Amanda's, and have an impact 100x greater than a $1,500.00 "review" from him that than, again, would not really add up to much.
(think fiat world and "credit ratings" in which credit agencies were being paid by the banks to rate them. Well, are we going to go the same route and pay to be rated?)
The way Bitcoin Core wants to solve privacy is quite limited. It will only protect the amounts sent/received, not the sender/recipient. https://leastauthority.com/blog/zerocash_and_confidential_transactions.html
recent bitcoin fuzz
(k atlas was furious about p todd treatments)
are here
https://news.bitcoin.com/open-bitcoin-privacy-project-top-5-wallets-2016/
fuzz:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/
sorry a bit off topic
but this only shows that todd is definitely the wrong person for this job
Last edited by a moderator:
If he is willing, I'd say yes. I'd expect him to give us a solid analysis and if he sees solutions, to share them. I'd like him to comment on solutions we might come up with on anything found. He is definitely a person who doesn't like us, but if he has any work ethics, and gives it to us straight, I'd be all for it. If he just wants us to pay for him to troll - well, I would think that would hurt his reputation, so I'm willing to take the chance. A skeptic is more likely to find loopholes. And if he's nit-picky about stuff that is statistically 99.999% impossible and says there is a chance to game something, well, we can see for ourselves how probable that would be and if it needs work.