I listened to the entire podcast. Rusty is the poster child for ossification. Let me explain…

1. This Isn’t A “Restoration”

For starters, this is not a “restoration” of some long lost functionality blessed by Satoshi that was mistakenly disabled. 

At 5:20, Rusty admits that he has no idea why Satoshi disabled some of those codes, but Rusty assumes Satoshi thought they were potentially dangerous. 

Was Satoshi worried about the opcodes being dangerous to the operation of the core software? Or to the interlocking social incentives underpinning the entire system?

Rusty doesn’t know and doesn’t even consider factors beyond the memory usage or CPU cycles of the core software itself. 

Why the myopic perspective? We find out later in the podcast. 

2. Rusty’s Design Philosophy Is Dangerous 

At 49:00, Rusty says that he expects this more powerful scripting language will be used in unanticipated ways. 

This engineering mentality is suitable for a startup where the stakes are low. 

Do you think engineers of nuclear power stations would add a powerful API that could be used in unanticipated ways?

Of course not. 

When stakes are high, responsible engineers only enable limited functionality KNOWN to be safe. They don’t add powerful capabilities to “see how people will use them”. They move slowly and cautiously. They err on the side of conservatism. 

3. “But First, Do No Harm”

To your credit, you asked Rusty about the possibility that these new powerful capabilities might be abused. 

We then learn why Rusty doesn’t consider anything beyond the memory consumption and CPU cycles of the software. 

His terrifying answer? He. Just. Doesn’t. Care. 

At 51:00, Rusty admits that it will enable people to do more evil things. Not a problem, he thinks, because there are already lots of ways to abuse the system. What’s the problem with adding more?

Rusty doesn’t seem to respect what bitcoin is. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that bitcoin core protects the life savings of millions of people and is our hope for the future. 

He doesn’t even fully consider the first order effects, never mind the second or third. 

Rusty is dangerous. Clearly skilled, but lacking wisdom to apply those skills appropriately. Paving the road to hell with his good intentions. 

He should be nowhere near bitcoin core until he truly understands the significance of what he’s playing with. 

 Thanks for writing this out. Would be interested to see a rebuttal. 

 ditto. I need your reaction is to be in favor of ossification generally because it seems to be working so far 

 Rusty is not some random douche deciding to go YOLO on bitcoin - the dude has a body of work that speaks to his professionalism and engineering prowess. Your whole first point is you making assumptions about assumptions and then dissing Rusty’s valid concerns about cpu cycles and memory use - the exact things you need to consider for DDOS attacks etc. 

Nuclear power plants generate electricity the is used in all sorts of dangerous ways and then the waste is processed into fucking nuclear weapons. Your criticism is lacking the necessary depth of understanding for me to take you seriously. 

Rusty’s proposal is the most positive development in bitcoin development that I’ve heard yet and I couldn’t be more stoked that he’s decided to use his life’s energy focused on this. Never been more bullish after hearing him speak at BTC++ in May. My two sats anyway… 

 You didn’t address any of my points. I have no issue with what Rusty did think about. My issue is with what he didn’t think about. 

You seem to believe that Rusty is a smart guy who works hard and makes good presentations. No debate there. I just say he thinks of bitcoin like an open source project and doesn’t recognize the importance of it. He has a myopic view, lacks wisdom and is therefore dangerous. 

 You don’t make points, you make unsupported assertions about what Rusty is thinking or not, that’s just you pondering shit. 

 No, actually…

I point out that he has a myopic view by only considering the impact on CPU cycles and memory usage when the risks are far broader. 

I point out that he says he doesn’t care because there are already things bad people can do so he doesn’t worry about adding more. 

I point out his dangerous design philosophy is suitable for a low risk startup and not for the system that manages the world’s money and our hope for the future. 

Didn’t get those points? Maybe I used too many big words. Next time I’ll consider doing a comic strip or meme series.