(no title)
everfree | 9 months ago
I don't believe he did, and I'm familiar with a lot of his writings. Do you have a source?
> Single Client = Good. multiple client = menace.
Two major bugs took 100% of the Bitcoin network down on two occasions.
In contrast, several major bugs temporarily took out small subsets of Ethereum validators several times, but the network remained operational throughout. Due to EIP-1559, the network was not even degraded at all in terms of performance or throughput.
Apparently you're right that I can't convince you otherwise. One network's major bugs have caused major outages, and another network's major bugs resulted in 100.0% uptime still being maintained, and you still think the one with the major outages has a better strategy to defend against bugs.
proxynoproxy|9 months ago
It’s not an apples to apples comparison — I was there in 2013 with the 0.4/0.5 bdb issue happened, it was a split (not downtime), and the community went with 0.4 until 0.5 was patched. The community was much smaller. There was no downtime. There could have been loses on the centralized exchange side for the few hours of ambiguity. maybe there was 1 public report of loss at the time. This is the lesson that ETH people were not around for. More moving parts; more failure cases. More client, more moving parts.
everfree|9 months ago
There were several significant double-spends. People were able to create fake transactions and scam each other.
Preventing people from sending fake transactions is Bitcoin's one reason for existence. People made out with a bunch of stolen money.
If everyone being able to send fake Bitcoins around and scam people doesn't count as downtime, I don't know what counts as downtime.
Showing fake bitcoins is actively worse than if the network refused to process transactions at all.
As a side note, due to its slashing system, Ethereum "fails closed" like this and refuses to confirm transactions if the network were majorly disrupted.
> There could have been loses on the centralized exchange side for the few hours of ambiguity. maybe there was 1 public report of loss at the time.
At the time, I remember several reports of relatively large losses (and gains, by the scammers). But the private losses are probably larger and they're just as important. When people (and exchanges) get scammed, they're generally incentivized to stay quiet about it.
> This is the lesson that ETH people were not around for.
The "ETH people" that matter - the protocol researchers and client developers and exchange CEOs - were for the most part all around during the early Bitcoin days.
> More moving parts; more failure cases. More client, more moving parts.
Ten cars have "more moving parts" than one car, and the fleet is much more prone to a failure of one of the parts in one of its cars.
When two parts break at once, it's better to have a fleet of eight working cars than one broken car in need of two repairs.
Thanks for the source, by the way. I think Satoshi was just as wrong there as he was when he thought Bitcoin would become a "peer to peer electronic cash system".