The Deconomy 2018 forum which was held on 3rd April 2018 in Seoul, South Korea has taken the crypto-space by storm. The forum had keynote speakers such as Roger Ver, Craig S. Wright, Vitalik Buterin, David Schwartz, Jehan Chu, Vlad Zamfir, Samson Mow, JungA Lee and more.
The controversy started ever since Vitalik Buterin started his live tweet about the conference on Twitter where he covers topics regarding Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Roger Ver, Samson Mow and Craig Wright.
During the conference, he’s seen calling Craig Wright, a self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto a fraud and questions why he was even allowed to talk in the conference in the first place. This lead to a hailstorm on the platform where everyone is seen either agreeing or disagreeing with him.
On his 10th point, Vitalik Buterin talks about Bitcoin:
“Bitcoin is a really big shift on par with the internet and the internal combustion engine”, even if you replace “Bitcoin” with “cryptoeconomics in general’, I don’t think it’s fair to go quite that far. The tech is important, but imo better not to oversell it.”
To which B7i, a tech and crypto enthusiast says:
“On this point I’d like to say that I think the implications of cryptoeconomy in the long term can have as significant an impact as Internet and IC engine. There are subtle potentials of human progress that are freed and empowered, espically in things we haven’t thought of yet.”
John Bisu, a Bitcoiner adds:
“Perhaps you’ve become too rich to care, but you and satoshi have enabled a shift in the concept of money itself through tech; even the mere prospect of the people themselves – and not the nation state – defining what money can be is incredibly exciting and *empowering*”
Dumb_Than_Russian_Bot, a Freelance Coder, Informatics Researcher says:
“I don’t agree with you on this, Vitalik. I think crypto-economics could promote and hold people accountable, this could be more than internet and ICE. Internet and ICE empowered people, Cryptos could make good people, that’s why it becomes a religion.”
In his 16th tweet about the conference, Vitalik talks about Roger Ver’s speech, the CEO of Bitcoin.com and a Bitcoin angel investor.
“And here comes the anti-small-block speech, ‘What would I do if I wanted to stop Bitcoin? Advocate for 1 MB blocks to intentionally create high fees, slow confirmations, unreliable transactions’.”
Frank Dashwood, a Twitterati says:
“…and make a ‘legitimate’ case for handling tx processing off to a third party… in a network intended/ designed to not need 3rd party payment processors’ ß That’s how I’d do it. Between regulation, and competing with banks, non-bankers have no chance.”
He continues Roger Ver’s speech regarding the same in his 18th Tweet:
“This will result in fewer users… less financial privacy… less censorship resistance’. This financial privacy bit may actually be true; I heard from third-party sources that Bitcoin tumblers were the first type of transaction to stop taking place as fees started going up.”
The same is continued in the 19th point:
“Roger provides chart of bitcoin usage going up linearly, then hitting the 1 MB limit, and loosing out on ptojected adoption beyond that. Losses somewhat overstated as txs crowded out by fees were lower value than txs that stay, but still serious.”
To which Popeye, a crypto-enthusiast says:
“We talking about block size Decentralization or Minimal fees. Which one would you choose?”
Vitalik Buterin concludes Roger Ver’s live tweet by saying that the only thing he disliked about the presentation was that it didn’t engage any of the arguments in favor of small block position and that he would like a deeper discourse which gets into the pros and cons of both sides.
He starts off live tweeting about Craig Wright on his 21st tweet and quotes:
“Craig Wright begins: ‘We’re going to talk about the lies.’ ‘Samson said that money was used first in barter and as a store of value – BULLSHIT!’ Then proceeds to brag about how many university degrees he has….. eh, at least he read Graeber.”
Nelson, a Twitterati from Peru says:
“Wait faketoshi was invited to this one as well? Is it me or the bar for these events getting lower”
Stuart Hill, another Twitterati comments:
“Unrewarded genius is almost a proverb—Pres. Calvin Coolidge in explaining why education will not replace persistence as the key to success. When he is bragging about his degrees this immediately came to mind.”
Vitalik then continues saying that the next lie according to Craig is that Bitcoin needs to be fixed and that technocrats need to make it better.
David Jerry, an Ex-Wall Street tech monkey, pro-skeptic, crypto-enthusiast who’s interested in Bitcoin and a free market economist who has asked Craig regarding the same says:
“He means that mining nodes are hyper connected to each other.”
Jonathan Silverblood, a Jack-of-most-trades, fascinated with deep subjects like Bitcoin says,
“Not elaborating seems to be a theme for @ProfFaustusu – it’s like he is throwing things out there, then just moves on before the audience has a chance to even begin to comprehend.”
Vitalik then talks about how Craig shows a slide containing 6 diagrams of network topologies and claims Bitcoin to be less decentralized and complains about how he doesn’t elaborate further. He says that according to Craig, Bitcoin works because of squiggly lines called math while pointing to more non-sequiturs.
In his 25th tweet, Vitalik adds:
“Re selfish-mining: ‘you actually have a negative gamma’… ‘you actually help the honest miners by attacking the network.’ My bulls*** meter appears to be showing a negative value… oh wait that was an integer overflow.”
Daveon Z Ye replies:
“Active gas medium in laser has effective negative abs. Temperature. Do you know that? If selfish miners get called out and their blocks actively rejected, then they have effective neg. gamma. Craig knows the definition of gamma.”
In conclusion, he says that Craig’s security model concerns him and that validating transactions which users receive are important.
He starts live tweeting about Jeff Pail, Samson and Roger’s panel.
In his 44th Tweet, Vitalik Tweets about the Roger and Samson’s discussion in which he agrees with Roger, and says:
“Roger: what is Bitcoin to you, Samson? Samson: a new form of money. Roger: with $50 fees? Samson: well, what are the fees now? Roger: $0.20, but only because the users were driven away. FYI, I’m on Roger’s side here; $50 fees should IMO count as a de-facto liveness failure”
Udi Wertheimer, a Bitcoiner, Coder, Adversarial thinker says:
“If you paid a $50 fee on a standard Bitcoin transaction you’re a moron or a liar. You know better V”
After which, Udi replies:
$50 high? For a normal transation? Then yes, it could’ve been avoided. As I said in the following tweet, either it wasn’t worth your time to save $50 (in which case there’s nothing to complain about) or yeah, you made a mistake. Bitcoin opponetnts like calling this ‘blaming the user’ but this is irrelevant in this context. I’m referring to V describing this as a ‘liveness failure’ which is just wrong. Another alternative: that transaction was worth *so much more* for you that you didn’t give two shits how much it cost.”
Vitalik continues in his 45th Tweet says:
“It’s easier to migrate from Bitcoin core to lighting’ – this is actually very interesting point: lighting only benefits from bitcoins *currency* network effect, NOT *tech/development* network effect”
To which Tom Harding says:
“Lighting suffers from zero tech deployment. Never forget, GreenAddress garned zero merchant adoption.”
Mario Dian, a Bitcoin and Monero enthusiast and founder of freedomnodecom adds:
“This is only true as long as nobody keeps using altcoins. Once the demand is high enough to raise the fees it will make more sense to migrate to cheap LN.”
Vitalik later talks about the debate replace-by-fee brought up by Roger in his 49th tweet, which says:
“Roger brings up the replace-by-fee debate. ‘Block times doen’t matter if miners accept the first transaction they see, not the highest-fee-paying one’ Samson brings up tht the RBF was not a protocol change. Roger brings up my post on why soft forks are coercive.”
Vitalik urges BCH to adopt 15 seconds block times in 53rd Tweet which says:
“More arguments on replace-by-fee. WHY CAN’T BCH JUST MAKE CONFIRMATIONS THEMSELVES FAST BY ADOPTING 15 SECOND BLOCK TIMES AND GHOST ALREADY GODDAMMITT!!!1!
Cerberus, a BTC enthusiast says:
“So you do NOT understand decreasing block time 40 times requires you to wait for 40 times more confirmations for your transaction to be equally secure?”
To which Dr Craig S Wright replies:
“No. Sorry. Not how Bitcoin works.”
According to Roger, the long-term solution is to increase the block size, to which, Samson contradicts that it is a dead end. Vitalik says that he’s okay with a super-big-blocker as long as sharding techniques are used to make light client verification easier.
Before concluding the live tweet, he claims that Samson attacked Bitcoin cash’ers for calling it Bitcoin Cash and says that its unfair as the Ethereum team has no issues with Ethereum Classic.
Bitlord, a Bitcoin trader since 2012 says:
“Stop lying Vitalik. You and a select group of developers actively tried to kill the original chain (ETC) and even lobbied exchanges to not list it while the other lot of you where trying to dump it to zero”
Jordan Tuwiner, a world Bitcoin helper adds:
“That’s because Ethereum Classic is accurately claiming to be the original chain. Bcash is falsely claiming to be the “real” Bitcoin through propoganda on bitcoin dot com.”
Vitalik concludes by saying that both sides need to improve their discourse and calls Craig crazy.
Source: Read Full Article