pull down to refresh
25 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 20 Sep 2022 \ on: Why did Saylor say "proprietary software" in his article? bitcoin
He might have meant non-proprietary. Might've also just been a slip given he's been in corporate town selling proprietary software for decades.
I think he used the word proprietary in place of the concept "custom and single-use", and not in the sense of closed source and owned by one entity. One might consider such a code as being owned by the POW-algorithm developers since the details of how such a proof of work is designed and implemented and the theory around its security will likely not be peer reviewed or blessed by industry as generally useful and trustworthy. Imagine if people went around poking holes in the security of SHA256... This would be devastating for not only bitcoin, but nearly every encryption protocol in existence.
reply
I think he used the word proprietary in place of the concept "custom and single-use"
That sounds far fetched to be honest. I don't think Saylor would use "proprietary" in such a convoluted way. I think the usage of "proprietary" is very wide spread to be the opposite of open source.
I think he meant what this comment explained: #72092
reply
Reading it again, it looks like hyperbole and he's using the 'proprietary software' phrase to mean opaque to understanding by everyone other than the core developers, but it could also include the possibility of actual proprietary components which would (intentionally or unintentionally) tie the algorithm to some specific private hardware or software intellectual property or trade secret.
reply
It could mean either or both. Proprietary could mean the GPU supplier's custom acceleration facilities and drivers. It could also be a poor choice of words given his background in developing custom software which typically is referred as proprietary. In either case, there is something nonstandard about both, and this is what I think he's objecting to.
reply
So you agree it's confusing? I wonder if someone already mentioned it to him. I think he should correct it.
But still, even replacing "proprietary" with "non-proprietary" doesn't make sense. He stills says
That places all security & control of the network in the hands of a small group of software developers, who must create virtual machines doing virtual work with virtual energy in a virtual world to create virtual security.
afterwards and is (clearly?) talking about Ethereum before (and after, as the quote about "virtual machines ..." shows.
So SHA-256 ASICs also doesn't make sense to me.
I can see what he's getting at. But I am not sure everyone else is when reading this
reply
It's definitely confusing.
reply