I totally agreeInteresting 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.
I think it's useful to stop and try to really understand the motivations and priorities behind the divergence of vision here.Legitimacy, a lot of people are mistified by instantx and the maximilianist bitcoin folk are in denial.
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)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.
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.htmlI 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.
recent bitcoin fuzzThe 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
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.So I know there's mixed feelings about Todd, but he is well known in blockchain tech and is very much focused in the field of zero confirmation txs and fast payments or lack there of.
Not sure who else would be good to do some third party review of instant x, but never the less I asked him and here is his response.
View attachment 2223
So yup! Todd will review Instant X code for 150 USD / hour.
- step's on soap box -I can't see the actual proposal on the dashwhale. Or it is just preproposal discussion?
Then again, this is a much better idea! A++++1 I don't think he's very professional. He's more of a celebrity than a professional.
The right way to get a technical review done (if that's really what this is about) is to find a sleepy academic department out in the 'real world' that's got no axe to grind other than analytical rigour. Fund a couple of PHD students or something to produce a report that will be useful to the project.
If Peter Todd is being sought for his celebrity status ("well known in blockchain tech") rather than his reputation for dispassionate rigour, then don't be surprised if it ends up as a "celebrity put down" rather than a rigerous appraisal.
He's already given his verdict on record anyway. So why pay him $150 an hour just to type it out ?
I see that the first guy is on Twitter, I'll break the ice...OK, while I see the comedy value of Reverend Todd debating Juan online, I now see the light. Here is the right team for the job:
So, who wants to reach out to them...