2 years ago

FREEDOMAIN INVESTMENT ROUNDTABLE 11: OPPOSING BITCOIN!

Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain discusses the latest updates in the wonderful world of Bitcoin!

NOT investment advice of course...

But damn useful!

(sorry, I misspoke, the Ether fees were only 5x the price)

FREEDOMAIN NFT: www.freedomainnft.com

www.freedomain.com

Source arguments against Bitcoin from a Freedomain listener.

I wrote out a few of my arguments for why I think Core is compromised. No pressure to read all this, but I didn’t want you to think I couldn’t make a case for what I was asserting.

a. They have a financial incentive. All the Core developers work for a company called Blockstream. Blockstream’s main product is a thing called Liquid. They call it a sidechain, but basically it's a payment network that runs on top of Bitcoin and they collect fees from it. If Bitcoin works as a payment network, Blockstream doesn’t have a business model. They need Bitcoin to suck as a payment network in order for their product to have a place in the market. https://blockstream.com/liquid/

b. They lie. In 2016 representatives of Core met representatives of Bitcoin miners to discuss increasing the blocksize. At the time miners were signaling that they were going to switch to running code produced by a different development team. The Core developers promised the miners that they would double the blocksize if the miners promised to update their nodes to include a new feature called Segwit. Segwit was needed for Blockstream’s Liquid sidechain to work. When the time came they insisted that Segwit be activated months before the blocksize increase and the miners complied. Then after the Core devs got what they wanted they refused to include a blocksize increase in their code, even though they had promised to earlier. https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff

c. They contradict themselves. At the time Core proponents said that it was immoral to change the code if not everyone agrees to it. That doesn’t make sense, because they had no problem making an enormous controversial change to Bitcoin’s design, but if anyone wrote code that disagreed with Core’s code, it was an attack!

d. They’re wrong about important stuff. A big argument Core said at the time for why we shouldn’t do a blocksize increase was because they said Segwit was already a blocksize increase. Segwit rearranges data in the block in a way that in theory can trick a miner into thinking a block is smaller than it really is. Core said that effect would roughly double the amount of transactions the network could process. Then they said if we do a doubling of the blocksize on top of Segwit that would really be like a quadrupling of the transaction throughput and that would be crazy dangerous. In reality, Segwit had almost no effect on transaction bandwith.

e. They lied about the lightning network. All the Core devs said there’s no need to worry about transaction throughput because the Lightning Network was coming. That was like 5 years ago and it still

Browse more videos

Browse more videos