Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is all pretty much boring, tired lies that altcoin profiteers like to trot out apparently assuming nobody is still around who is interested in contradicting them.

The purpose of OP_RETURN was to end the script. It was not designed for rando garbage overlays that are worthless; Satoshi's views on scaling were ambiguous—rather than say it "should" he was instead correcting people who thought you could break consensus by simply setting the value higher. There was absolutely zero communication between Vitalik and anybody about his "plans" to dump an overlay into Bitcoin, and his current story about 80-to-40 bytes is a pure, often debunked lie. There isn't a single communication that Vitalik himself can point to anywhere which shows he was interested in "cooperating" and then core turned him down.

His typical lie was that he was interested in stuffing data into Bitcoin, but then core devs "stopped that" by reducing the amount he could stuff into Bitcoin by half—from 80 to 40 bytes—but when he says that he also never points at any discussion, and in any event the direct history contradicts this—no versions of Bitcoin from back then ever reduced anything. It was only ever an increase: from 0, to 40, to 80 in released versions.

There no evidence these people ever give which shows some lack of cooperation with Vitalik is the reason why Hearn and Andresen "split off" to make an altcoin, which itself is quite the absurdity, and if true just means they would have been ethereum pumpers anyway.. so..




This is the same tired misinformation you are spreading from 2017+ and I will prove it with primary sources.

Also, why are the comments on your account 90% calling other people liars about cryptocurrency?

Satoshi's views on scaling were NOT ambiguous. He planned to increase the blocksize and have users switch to SPV wallets. Read section 8 of the Bitcoin white paper:

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Also, direct Satoshi quote from bitcointalk about increasing the blocksize and hard forking to do it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg153...

"It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade."

Regarding OP_RETURN, both mastercoin and counterparty existed because of OP_RETURN, so no, it's not "garbage". It's a data field that can be used to link L2's to the Bitcoin blockchain by embedding them in transactions. These projects, factom, and countless others that built off of OP_RETURN had to abandon Bitcoin for other chains because of the core developers' gatekeeping.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: