Bitcoin Forum

Proposal: Ask the other coredevs to fork the github away from Gavin to take away the alert keys and commit access from him . This comes as a reaction to him not honoring the consensus process and actually engaging in a software propagation war which is actually a hostile takeover attempt and for putting investors into massive unease with this shenangians aswell as stealing countless hours of everyone with his kindergarden, and even impacting the market negatively and hurt investors confidence a great deal.

I think we have sufficient reason to make this proposal and i feel many will support it.

Consensus works this way: Someone makes a proposal and if there are no concerns raised or veto given then there shall be a consensus.  

So i raise the question here what are the things and concerns that would speak against this proposal?
Because if nobody raises concern and can defend that sufficiently we'd have a consensus for it.

So if you are against revoking Gavins' commit access aswell as alert keys: now is the time to speak out. If nobody does, the consensus would be established already with a proposal meeting no veto.

Please, if you have valid and rational concerns about revoking Gavins' alert keys and commit access list them below. Thanks.

So you don't think we should follow the BIP way of adding features to the wallet?

Does a consensus approach seem like the best way to make changes to Bitcoin?

This isn't a feature in the wallet.


Looks like it's unavoidable. Actually consensus rule works great in many cases and ensures something is supported by very many people when a real consensus is found. Employed correctly it can bring great benefits... Bitcoin runs on it so how could there be a better method? Actual consensus means change is supported by more than a supermajority or at least not opposed by people.


Right now we certainly don't have consensus for a Gavin with Alertkeys so i thought i'd bring up this topic to test if there was even still support for him in any way, because if it wasn't, consensus would actually lean more towards the new proposal to exclude him.

So that's why we're interested in voices and arguments against an exclusion of Gavin as those arguments will be the only obstacles to overcome to reach solid consensus on the proposal.

So don't be shy, list your long and personal list why you think Gavin holding the alert keys is absolutely vital for Bitcoins' viability and why the sky would fall for you if a consensus would be forming for his exclusion. I'm begging you please give your reasons to oppose this very simple one-line and non-code proposal!  

How about this proposal:
They actually ask Gavin about it? There is no reason to be waging unneeded wars, hopefully the peaceful method is going to work.

Asking Gavin already happened. He does not react. So that's that.

Shouldn't be preceived as 'war'. We're just looking for a consensus which in case it can be found is likely the opposite of war as it would put all this upheaval in the community to rest and we could go back to fight bulls vs bears instead of Gavincoin vs Core which i think everyone prefers.
I'm just proposing the most simple and obvious solution to the blocksize debate and i think this proposal should be absolutely included for the options to resolve the "great bitcoin blocksize crisis"

But all past changes to Bitcoin have been through the BIP process, a consensus approach would be different from the past approach to changes.

What would we do, create a new wallet without Gavin's Alertkeys and if enough people adopt that new wallet without the keys then eventually it forks and we move forward with the new consensus wallet?

It's about consensus in the community and not in the code. So BIP makes not a lot of sense here. Showing the fastest route, that's all.

What would we do to create Bitcoin without Gavin? Just look for a broad consensus in the community for it and after that is reassured we'd just ask the core devs to look at our community decision and if they aswell agree they could then with the support of the community change with no code changes to a new github without Gavin commit access or alert keys. People could then choose to update to the new client if they wish to not be bothered by Gavincoin-spam in their Bitcoin wallet or just use the old one in case they don't care about the alerts.
Actually for users not a lot changes. The only sideeffect i could imagine would be the one from Gavin loosing his mind and abusing his old alert keys to confuse people who haven't upgraded to non-Gavin-Bitcoin yet.  
So basically nothing would change except Core moving to new github with new alert keys. End users shouldn't notice. Miners don't need to upgrade. Change is potentially reversible (but unlikely to reverse afterwards) and has no impact on the network, market or miners whatsoever. It doesn't even need testing on testnet! No change to the code and can be done in an afternoon. Discussion could be brief and action swift.

I think if someone disregards consensus process in the devteam and starts to attack the network he himself has actual commit access and alert keys to that's a pretty good reason to reevaluate if we still feel much longer comfortable with Gavin.

Can you provide a link to that?
They were fighting over the fork, so I don't see a reason for them not to fight over this. You should be aware of the amount of drama that there was (is) due to the fork.

However I'm not sure if forking is the right move.

It still makes no sense how people can think consensus means "a small minority of coders have to agree all the time".  Consensus is what the majority of the users securing the network agree on.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly (yes, OP, I'm talking to you and anyone else with your broken mindset).  If you genuinely want a protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You don't belong here.  Go away.

Ya, I guess that makes sense...just create a new wallet and if enough people adopt it then consensus is reached and the new code would be in place for Bitcoin.

If only they used your approach for getting consensus on a new blocksize.

I'd need to search a great deal for that link but you can actually go and ask him yourself. Maybe he is more responsive to you?
When the community can establish this proposal as a solid consensus there wouldn't be more 'fighting' in the devteam. They'd just discuss an afternoon without Gavin about it and then say "yes" or "no, because ... "
This thing is a non-code change and thus can be sought after in the community. The devteam does not need to start discussions about bitcoin that do not concern code. That's the part of the community, i think.  

Forking the github (not the network) is the move proposed in this proposal which has generally no big impact if there is a consensus for that change. If there are better routes let me know but i think there aren't any to exclude Gavin without much more drama.
If there were other proposals to do it differently you can make a new thread in a similar fashion and we could discuss it as an alternative proposal.

Ever thought about the dev team actually hoping for this to pop up as it's totally not on any of them to bring up this proposal? This particular proposal can only be started and debated in the community and only if we are able to reach a good consensus on the issue we'd even go and bother the devs about it.



Hate to repeat myself: he has commit access and even the alert keys to the coin he starts to propagate alternative software to outside of the original devteam, de facto starting a software propagation war with the very people he supposedly works with and potentially tainting the whole thing badly or even crashing the market to worthless.
Its not about asking the devteam as we all know people could vote to move away from them aswell but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to take away Gavins' (and possibly Mikes') alert keys and commit access because we have reason to ask for it. The current other coredevs aren't up for discussion in this proposal and thus they'd probably be the ones doing it. So actually that comment didn't make much sense to me.


Not exactly. First talk to people (that's what we currently do), make that proposal (happening right here) and if there is no strong enough opposition to that proposal we can then go ahead and take it a step further. So that's why we're asking for opposing arguments or concerns to this particular proposal!  
If no opposition springs up we could already have reached a very solid consensus. Ultra fast lane to consensus!  (definition: absolutely no opposition to a proposal means consensus - that's what we're trying now)
So before the change comes people will know it and support it. If there is any kicking and screaming (like we saw recently) then we can assume there is no consensus! So i'm asking for the kicking and screaming up front now and if there is nothing of that, then we're on the fast lane because no concerns or veto for a particular proposal means after doublechecking if the consensus is real we could go ahead with implementation.
The right to veto (including reason) for minorities stays fully intact and thus it's a 100% valid consensus seeking process.

So who should have the alert key?  If whatever client you choose to run has an alert key system, there will always be a group or individual in control of that system.  Any developer could, in theory, use that system at any time to give out any message they wanted.  But at the end of the day, it's a message.  No one can force a user to update their client.  Your argument is that Gavin could potentially use it to tell users to upgrade to XT, but I think you'll find he's already telling users that they can upgrade to XT when the time comes, so who cares?  Commit access is also irrelevant.  If the code contains a feature users don't approve of, they aren't going to run that code.  Anyone can release a Bitcoin client at any time, under any name, with any features they so choose.  If you decide to use that client, it means you agree with the code those developers have put in place.  Your assumption that the current group of developers (minus Gavin and Mike) are in a better position to be trusted with the alert keys and commit access, as if they were some permanent authority on what Bitcoin is and should be, is entirely flawed.  On top of that, there's also no reason whatsoever why Gavin and Mike can't continue to contribute code to core, because there may be other features and changes where all the developers of core do happen to agree.  It's not "them versus us", so stop trying to paint it as such.

Your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  Grow up.  That's not how this works.  Developers can disagree as much as they like, because ultimately, it's not their decision how the network should be run.  

Who should end up with the alert keys can be sorted out in some second tier proposals. This is just a proposal to remove it from Gavin. Who should have them afterwards needs to be sought after later in case we can reach a consensus on this proposal. One step at a time.

It is our problem what we propose and we ask for opposing concerns. You delivered none so far. For you to understand the motive behind this proposal it should be sufficient to say "we don't feel comfortable anymore with alertkeys with Gavin because we fear abuse" and "Gavin made the impression to some people to actually attack and harm Bitcoin and the investors' confidence in it". We have the right to propose this. Not to mention it would be relief to many longterm investors and not yet tech savvy newcomers alike and also a burden taken off the community as we would be back to normal and the job back to the devs to solve the issue with a consensus instead of a software propagation war. This proposal also brings an end to the FUD. It in effect is a valid resolution for the current blocksize debate. So, yes, it's a valid proposal and people have every right to make this proposal as it solves the current toxic and unfruitful blocksize debate instantly and helps core devs to come back around to actually do their job properly and solve problems within their consensus framework. I think with Gavin excluded from Bitcoin it will have a better chance on finding itelligent solutions which can get a proper consensus for the problem of scaling.
Maybe it's in the end of the day actually just a vote for consensus instead of against it ...
So, yes, i think this proposal makes a hell lot of sense.

So if you can't offer rational argument for why Gavin has to stay in control of the alertkeys then i think it's safe to say there haven't been any such points raised. All you say is "i think your proposal is shit" ... and that's not sufficient to be taken seriously, i fear.

Bolded your overly-emotive wording to highlight the real problem here.  You fear too much and for no reason.  If you want a "rational argument", I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence of that in what you're writing here.  You aren't being rational at all.  Anyone reading this thread who actually understands how this system works, will come away from this thread with the resounding impression that your argument is "anyone should have the keys but Gavin because I don't understand how decentralisation works and I've worked myself into a panic over nothing".  You can work yourself into a panic if you want, but those with any sense whatsoever won't be joining you.

Think it through for a just a moment.  What's really the simplest solution here?  Your proposal is that Bitcoin core has to be the only client for the rest of forever and all developers have to agree on everything for the rest of forever.  Every time someone doesn't agree, a larger number of people have to reach an agreement that the developer who didn't agree has to be stripped of their ability to contribute code or Bitcoin will die a horrible death?  I'm sorry, but that's stupid.  There's no polite way of saying it.  

The easiest and most simple solution, which is the one we're already using, is that any developer can release any client they want and the users make the final decision.  It doesn't matter if you don't trust one particular developer because it isn't your sole decision and it isn't the sole decision of the developer you don't like.  It is the decision of the majority of users securing the network.  That's what consensus means.  If you can't grasp this simple fact, Bitcoin isn't for you.  Either you accept the decision of the majority, or you don't.  Those are the two options.  Pick one.

You didn't read my last comment. I'd continue conversation with you in case you can raise rational points to why Gavin (and nobody else) needs to hold the keys.  


--------------
edit: btw if like you say everyone would just go rogue that would result in accidental fork and chaos relative rapidly. There is a good reason the devteam uses consensus methods to release a software that's kind-of official. It avoids confusion, scams and accidental forks of the network. Everyone releasing rogue software will not work in the long run, but that's total offtopic now.

another point:

This is actually contradiction because consensus isn't equal to majority vote. Totally not. Maybe you, sir, go and look up a definition for 'consensus' before spreading more nonsense. Cheers!

also on 'fear': it's the first letter in FUD and also a force driving markets. So i think we can express it. Replace with 'concern' if it suits you better.

I thoroughly read your last comment.  I understand that you honestly believe the alert keys can be abused and that the whole network will come crashing down in spectacular fashion.  But you honestly believe this because you don't understand that the alert keys really aren't that powerful.  I could write in this thread in big red letters:

HEY EVERYONE, UPGRADE TO XT RIGHT NOW!

And that would be about as effective as a malicious developer "abusing" the keys to further their own agenda.  Any user who is capable of mining or running their own node should be sufficiently capable to make a decision on what software to run.  Even if there's a message from a developer saying there's a different version available, it doesn't mean they're going to run that code.  

I repeat again, your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  

In no uncertain terms:  The. Alert. Keys. Are. Not. An. Issue.



For a fork to occur, there has to be a majority.  Sure, 53% for example wouldn't be enough of a majority, but the word "majority" doesn't magically change to a different word when we reach the required proportion of the network.  It doesn't mean 100% of users have to agree and it definitely doesn't mean all the developers have to agree.  You can try to twist that any way you like, but it doesn't make it any less true.  Try less clutching at straws and more trying to understand what I'm telling you. 

OP is basically making that argument and wants everyone to upgrade to XT.

One one side of the blockchain upgrade proposal are the folks that say we need to follow the BIP process for any Bitcoin upgrade.

On the other side, Gavin and Mike Hearn after much discussion have left the decision to the Bitcoin community.

If enough people start using the XT wallet then consensus will be reached and the block size will be upgraded. A method the OP appears to prefer. As opposed to the BIP process used previously.

I disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that the average user of Bitcoin has no idea of what is going on behind the scenes apart from reading a bit on some news website (which mostly spread FUD).
I think that alert keys have a certain power to them, else he would just give them up. However, it really depends on how much the person is familiar with the situation and his own judgement.

Also I do not agree with the use of power to take away the keys nor forking again.


Update: I didn't realize that you were talking about that.

My argument against it would be that Satoshi still holds those keys as well. I respect Satoshi enough to not take that from him.

@DooMAD

We're actually discussing a clear cut proposal, not the emotions of people proposing it ... ad hominem btw ...

@Elwar

Worst and most screwed up trolling i've seen in a while ...
on second comment: satoshi could be dead

@LaudaM
Forking the github is an entirely different thing than forking the netowrk. Forking git does not require any action from users. It's just the formal act of removing Gavins' power to alert Bitcoin users about whatever comes to his mind. Nothing more, nothing less. Replace 'fork github' with 'moving to a new one'. In case we can establish a consensus on it, it would be painless and won't be a big deal in the end of the day.

...............

ok, guys, i'll leave the thread to you for a while and will be coming back around as soon volatility of global markets lets me. Could be a shaky week ahead. I hope some of you raised some rational points why Gavin and nobody else needs to hold the alertkeys till then. If you don't thats fine too.
More "i think you're dumb", "this proposal is shit"  or "does the title read 'update XT'?" can be posted but should not be responded to. See you next week then. Maybe we get some support, maybe we get some alternative resolutions, maybe we get valid concerns raised about this proposal. Anything else would be out of frame and would require a new thread.  I know you dont care but i said it anyways. Have a magnificent week, everyone.

Don't you think it'll be a total mess of yn alert popping up in the wallet and half the community said 'ignore it' and the other halve said 'don't ignore it'? I think this would be heaps of stress for the noobs or casual users. Also many would go falsely upgrade without checking forum first and thus creating more chaos with them ending up supporting a software which they never would in their right minds just because an abuse of the alert system.

I like the idea of containing a lot of possible damage and confusion before it happens and also end the populism end endless debate in the same stroke. I think doing this could help restore confidence in Bitcoin.

So you're saying the "million bitcoins" Satoshi supposedly owns will never be spent?

That would send the price to the moon and all trolls that keep bringing it up would have no argument other than hoping and wishing that he is still alive.

If Satoshi is dead then luckily he gave Gavin the alert keys so they can still be used in an emergency like when we had to fork in 2013.

Forking away... sounds like another fearbringer to the community.

Though i see what you fear. I see the risk it being misused.

I wonder what could be done in case its really misused. Will it be possible to overwrite his alerts? If its possible to overwrite them fast then i believe it wont be a big problem. Awareness about the message will happen fast and countermeasures can be taken.

Um...the alerts are just a feature of the Bitcoin Core wallet. If abused, a few lines of code are deleted and a new wallet released. Or you use another wallet without the alert message.

It's basically a way to send a message to all of the wallets in case of an emergency. Like what happened in 2013 where we had to have a hard fork immediately.

Satoshi gave the alert keys to Gavin and theymos. I do not know they have the same "keys" or different "key" for different individual. I assume the alert key is one key and all holders have the same key.
(Any verified info on the "key" or "keys")

If core devs fork away Gavin's key, are they also forking away Satoshi and theymos' key? This surely isn't the right direction to go.

People who create threads like this are bad actors in our community and should not be taken seriously.

I know that its a feature of bitcoin core. The worst case scenario would be that, dont ask me why, gavin would use his key sending a message like "Caution. This wallet will stop working tomorrow, you wont be able to access your bitcoins anymore until you download bitcoin xt". No, i dont want to explain why he should do that. Though i believe thats what the op is fearing. Even when a new wallet gets released then probably a lot of nodes were lost already. They wont get to see another possible alert.

Most of the block size threads are alt coin losers trying to make it look like Bitcoin has some inherent flaw.

The block size limit was added as a band-aid fix against spam and can easily be changed as needed.

End of story.

Forking github, not the coin, man.


This comment is the only valid concern i can identify. This would also be a concern to me. This would of course need to be adressed.



Exactly. This and i feel blackmailed and distorted by Gavin and personally would wish he would be excluded from everything 'Bitcoin' so i can feel safe again storing my hard earned money in btc again.
If he keeps being accepted as "bitcoin dev" by the community i am sorry, i wouldn't invest a dime anymore into this.


.................


ok, guys. One single valid point against the proposal raised so far... well not even against it in case we can sort that thing out somehow. (could send new alert keys to satoshi known email adress and theymos could also get the new key, why not?)

No veto or serious counterargument raised so far to the proposal. Al i get is ad hominem. Looking good this far ...  

By the way: since Gavin propagates his software outside devteam and BIP i don't see why he would even need to have alertkeys for core? He should have to choose if he wishes to hold alertkeys for core or xt - i don't think he can hold the keys to both or at least it doesn't look fair to me.
Just imagine all of the core devs start to propagate alternative clients that would fork the network when adopted?!
I don't think the community can accept his behaviour and he certainly needs to be excluded for the sake of investors confidence alone. He should release shitcoins and make hostile takeover in shitcoins because i don't think he's mature enough for BTC.

http://www.technorms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/4-new-windows-update-pop-up.png

This makes sense to me. If someone holds the alert key he should be united with Bitcoin's Core Team (https://bitcoin.org/en/development).

Imagine a rogue Microsoft employee retaining the ability to push out update notices to every single windows desktop.

one person should not have such power over bitcoin .. what if he sent out the alert 'Bitcoin is dying, jump ship!'  There are a lot of morons who would sell off , driving price down!

The alert keys for core and xt are the same. XT is the same as Core except the added feature that when there is a consensus agreement, then the block size will increase.

Are you against the consensus of Bitcoin users agreeing on an upgrade? Or would you rather leave that to a centralized group of people?

Ahh I see now...

Someone sold too low and now wants the price to drop again to buy back in.  ::)

FUD about some Gavin conspiracy won't bring down the price. Buy in now, the bear market is over.

Oh my god another idiotic not needed bs thread. Pure FUD from OP here!

This doesn't apply exactly. He can't push out updates to anyone, what he can do is make an alert. I don't see it being that dangerous nor do I think that Gavin is going to abuse his power in this case.

We've seen this countless times. A group of people are trying to undermine Gavin, however that isn't going to really have an effect.

What's more important? Gavin or Bitcoin? I think it's only natural that when Gavin tries to undermine Bitcoin and hurts peoples' investement with this thing giving rise to fear, uncertainty and doubt, he certainly won't earn more respect with that. I don't care if Gavin is undermined but i do care if Bitcoin is undermined (by Gavin in this case). I think Bitcoin would benefit from Gavin taking some distance to it. A lot of people are actually pretty sick of him.

source?

@OP
Please, just leave the Bitcoin space. Nobody cares.
How many stupid "Gavin is a bad person"-threads, which don't add anything to a constructive discussion, do we need?

90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus.

Which is a blatant lie. The Gavincoiners' struggle to rig the polls to 50%. We've seen two polls with large participation which both show Gavincoiners' have possible not even a majority, they are just more obtrusively.

Also at least 3 threads talking about Gavin being possibly of shady background and dealings with three letter agencies. These polls also show around 50% of people do not trust Gavin at all.

Talking about '90%' and 'huge consensus' is a obnoxious attempt of manipulating the discussion.

The only poll that matters is the amount of people that download and use Bitcoin XT.

People invested in alt coins need not worry about which wallet Bitcoin users are using.

Um... i think thats an incorrect interpretation. 90% is ok with a raise of the blocksize. That surely doesnt mean that 90% are ok with the way Gavin is trying to do what he wants.

I think its really not constructive to let it look like there are the one part that is stupid and doesnt see we need a bigger block size. Thats simply not how things are.

Personally i think the ideas and way to act of gavin and hearn is something i dont like and will not support. But im still for a higher blocksize. I think someone who acts that way will act so in the future too, or worse. So as long as this doesnt change i think at one point something unfortunate might happen. Its simply me judging about a character and/or the ideas propagated.

Read it as you wish but i think practically no one is against a raise of blocksize. How it happened that gavin looks like the one who wants the future and the rest are the dumb people that dont want a raise is beyond me. All the critics are because of the way he tries to enforce it.

Sure, people are against this raise. I am looking into this discussion for months. Seems like you have just joined after Gavin made this deal with Hearn. That is a result of this whole discussion, not the reason for this discussion.

He's just spreading nonsense and trying to undermine him. Gavin didn't do anything wrong to Bitcoin. You can make your own fork and try to get the exchanges on board.
You're telling me that a lot of people are sick of him? The only people that are sick of him are Mircea and his group of mindless followers.
Gavin should be praised for all the work that he has done, and so should every developer.

I wonder why some individuals are really complaining. How about you take up coding and actually contribute to the project? Anyone could do this, however people rather complain that Gavin is a bad person.
Surely he can't be perfect, as no human is. He's prone to make an error or two, although he should be forgiven.

Well can't really say it like that, however there is something else that we should be looking at. Remember the first time that this discussion came up, like a few months ago? The thread had over 100 pages and I think that the majority were against it back then.
If we look at the amount of people that are supporting the increase now, it has grown exponentially.

What a weird thread. People want to take away his ability to send messages? Did he send his penis size or .onion drug links through the alert system? How did he abuse the alert feature? I must have missed a meeting.

Apparently we have no free will or intellect anymore, so if someone sent out a message telling us to upgrade we all have to do it without questioning.  We all have to be shielded from teh evil gavinz because no one can be trusted except the other core developers, who who are automatically right at all times as long as they agree.  

At least that's what I think he's proposing.    ::)

 1 = I trust Gavin more then any one else in the current Bitcoin Community.
 2 = I don't know who the fuck you are OP.
 
   

We are all human, and that makes us weak. The question should be, IF Gavin is only partially invested in the Bitcoin development, should he have the Alert keys? I just know Satoshi gave the alert keys to someone he thought was trustworthy and has the best interest of Bitcoin in mind.
What would the need for such keys be, if you are not investing your time and energy into Bitcoin Core development?
If it's only for brag rights or a question of pride, just get over it and pass it on to the next person who wants to lead the Core development.  ???

You cant say that people are against an increase only because most community members dont want to do haste things. Gavin acted like if we would meet the blocksizelimit tomorrow. Graphs were posted with exponential axis values that let it look like blocks are already 90% full now and other things.

The thing is that all the other developers see the problem. They only wanted a discussion about the best solution. And as far as i see it nearly no one is against a change in the future, when it becomes a problem. Though most think we have at least time to find the best solution.

You cant say so many are against it only because they dont want to follow gavins idea that we have to do it now, instantly, and the way he wants it. That this behaviour brings up resistance is normal.

So i would prefer when you say that people are against doing it the hasty way. Its not true that the ones that dont support gavin doesnt see the need of an increase. The problem is only the when and the how.

The thing is, coding for one project doesn't automatically preclude someone from working on another.  If, hypothetically, some serious security issue was found in core tomorrow, you can bet that Gavin and the other developers would all most likely be on the case working on a fix.  Once the new code for the fix is reviewed, an alert is sent out to notify people about the update.  It doesn't really matter who sends the update.  If Gavin is still happy to do it, there's no reason why he shouldn't still be able to. 

The issue I have with this thread is that the OP is basically proposing outright censorship to protect our community (who apparently can't be trusted to think for themselves) because a developer dared to commit the (apparently egregious) crime of displaying independent thought and having a mind of their own.  The OP feels strong indignation at this supposed betrayal for reasons that still make no sense.  Despite not signing any formal contract, all core devs must agree to forego independent thought and act as a hive mind at all times and agree on everything for the rest of time.  Refusal to comply with this means you must be cast out.  At least in whatever delusional dreamworld the OP is living in, anyway. 

So basically we arrive at the situation where any time someone disagrees with the actions of a developer we have to decide whether to 'vote them out' as if this was some sort of mindless reality TV show?  It's ridiculous. 

We don't really use the alert mechanism, and many of the contributors to Bitcoin Core would like to remove it-- because the value it provides is very low, relative to the administrative overhead we receive in terms of people justifying non-starter proposals based on it (e.g. wanting to use it to remotely control miner default behaviour) or just the cost users have in reasoning about its security implications for them.

That said, there is very little potential for abuse, because if a bogus alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system erases all other alerts and sets a static alert key compromised message. As a result, active misuse is already effectively constructively disabled.

And all without fanning any extra drama.

Thats a good info gmaxwell. I guess a fast reaction is almost certain then.

Though i wonder if it really is so useless. Didnt it help once with the alert when accidentally a fork was happening? The results werent so impressing?

Here are the past alerts:

http://puu.sh/iLddS/0de211b79e.png

Basically, the person(s) with the alert key possesses the authority to instruct bitcoin users to update. So strangely, at the moment, a man that vanished 5 years ago has that authority as does a developer that has apparently broken away from core. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no remaining core dev has this key.

Rhetoric alone cannot solve this problem.

While this might be true the question remains why someone who actively undermines the Bitcoin network, its devteam and community needs to hold said keys.
Leaving Gavin with the keys is like saying one could leave his car unlocked in a highly criminal neighbourhood because if a thief would be taking it, the police would stop him.
You lock the car so the thief can't drive away with it regardless of possible countermeasures!

Gavin tried a hostile takeover, mind you.

We're also talking about commit access so Gavin would have to take a harder route next time he would want to propose changes. Why does he even need commit access when he would propagate software outside the orderly routes? He doesn't need commit access to propagate his alternative software.
 
He also showed already how he would not care to hurt investors confidence and cost everyone involved massive amounts of time with his controversial proposals. He further showed he is unable to do teamwork so he is likely a burden for Bitcoin and the rest of the devs. He will very likely waste more time and hurt investors confidence further.
I think it makes a great deal of sense to make it harder for him to repeat these things on this or on another issue in the future.
If everyone of the core developers would behave in the way he does there wouldn't be a bitcoin after very short time. We do not want to support devs who try powergrabs and hostile takeovers. Why should be tollerate it? Why? One single reason, give me just one!


Basically for the amount of misconduct he has been showing lately he is holding far too much authority.
Also Hearn said on 'epicenter bitcoin' show he would like Gavin to revoke commit access for the other devs (https://youtu.be/8JmvkyQyD8w?t=47m37s). I think this was an outrageous thing to say.
After we have been hearing this we do know with all certainty that Gavin definately holds too much authority over a software he actively attacked from the outside.

Gavin in my opinion has become a hazard for the productivity of the devteam and the coin itself and that's why we should think about taking keys and commit access away to prevent further issues.

Even if the alertkeys would be removed entirely Gavin would still remain a security issue and certainly cause more headache with the access that he has to github.

Again: his behaviour is unacceptable and can under no circumstances be tolerated because if we let him get away with this other devs would possibly repeat this aswelll as Gavin would too.

We can not tollerate an attemtpted hostile takeover by a core dev ever because if we would we'd certainly face more trouble later as this repeats and possibly intensifies and evolves into new directions. Gavin basically brings disorder to Bitcoin.

----------------

With all that said:

So far i can not identify new arguments or valid concerns against the proposal. Actually nobody seems to be able to justify why Gavin would need to hold the keys or have commit access.
Some people don't like the proposal but somehow almost no rational arguments were brought forward why he (and nobody else) needs to hold said keys or why he would need to have commit access.

If that is true also and no other core dev holds the keys then things need certainly to change there. This can't stay this way.

Yes. Having an active core dev with the alert key might be a good idea. It's tough to justify everyone having the key except them. lol

You are bringing disorder to bitcoin, stop.

Yes, I estimate it could be corrected in under 5 minutes right now.

WRT result, the primary thing the alert does right now is triggers the error bar in Bitcoin Core and the alert notify output; which almost no one will notice. Past notices have had very little effect in general.

More or less incorrect on both counts. Yes, someone can send a message-- but that message can be disabled, locked out, and replaced with a key compromised method by anyone with the alert key.  For security reasons everyone who has the alertkey is not enumerated (so that someone can't attempt to suppress use of the alert key by targeting multiple people). Multiple people currently active in the project have the key, and there are also other security measures in place.

I hear your concerns. You're not the first or only one to express them; but I believe there is still a more professional cooperative way forward available and I think we should make use of it to the greatest extent possible.

This happens in the sport world too.... When the team performs bad, the couch is blamed. The first thing the supporters of that team wants to see, is the head of the coach to be cut.

In this situation, it seems as though the Bitcoin coach is doing some side betting against his own team by coaching for the other team.

It is just natural for people to air their views and opinions for such behaviour. You cannot coach two teams playing against each other, it's counter productive for both teams.  ???

No he didn't.  Also gmaxwell is one of the core devs.  One of the people you trust implicitly (simply because they aren't Gavin), just told you there isn't a security risk.



Translation:  "La la la la la I'm not listening unless people agree with me".  For someone who takes offence at someone else acting unilaterally (despite the fact there's nothing wrong with him doing that in an open source project), do you not see the irony in your tirade here?  You complain that Gavin did something without everyone agreeing, yet you want to do something without everyone agreeing?  Cry ad-hominem ad-nauseam if you like, but please stop being a hypocrite.  There's no other word to describe it.



Thank you for bringing some well needed sanity to this otherwise deranged thread.

To spare a little credit here; I'm unconcerned in part due to reasons that he was previously unaware of-- I think if I knew only what he knew, I would have been concerned. I'm thankful that people other than the development team are also thinking about these things and raising concerns; and I welcome it (though think it's much more productive if they're expressed in the most polite way possible; simply because adding emotion almost never makes a tricky situation easier)... it's just in this particular case I believe the concerns are adequately addressed for the moment, but I don't mind answering questions about it.

Sorry, but you are just wrong, all kinds of people say, that they don't want the blocksize limit raised ever. Look e.g. here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

I even had a real life discussion about that at my local Bitcoin Meetup. The bottom line was: "No blocklimit raise, we need trusted third parties"

So, don't tell me, what I have read/heard.

Oh well... that video is hefty.  ::) Did some minercorporation sponsor it? Though even then its plain stupid. A blocksize limit raise HAS to happen. At least in some years. Its stupid to force users to pay higher and higher fees and transactions stay unconfirmed. It would mean a big hit to the network since a currency that cant flow is useless. Miners would destroy their own eating ground.

Miners will get bigger fees. They shouldnt fear. They simply would need to enforce adoption and the more transactions happen the more fees will be collected. If someone really wants to restrict the network then this would not be a smart move.

By the way.. miners have all right to not include transactions they feel have a too small fee. When the users find that their transaction waits longer with a low fee then they will start to raise it. Simple as that.

And they fear centralisation? What do they think bigger fees will do? Surely companies that try to exploit it. It will not save decentralization. It cant.

A Bitcoin only for big transactions? Thats plain stupid. Bitcoin should be useable for everyone and every usecase of a value around the minimum fiat currency units. I dont know what kind ot bitcoin these users want but surely its not what satoshie wanted when he wanted to free the people from the banks. These bitcoiners seem to want to free the rich from the banks.

Ok, guess i understand bitcoin-xt fans now a bit more. Though i cant support him because i think he has a somewhat dangerous character.

At the end the miners will decide and it looks like the majority is for a raise at least. I mean the compromise with chinese miners.


Yes... blame the couch... :P

So you're saying there are more people holding the keys than we know about? You further say anyone holding a key can disable messages?

May i ask how many more people hold alert keys (number of people we don't know about)? How many of the core devs do actually secretly hold alert keys? More or less than 50% of them?

So if Gavin would go rogue his alerts would simply be disabled by someone else holding the keys? What if the submits the alert again? Will it end up in an endless childish 'submit and disable' war between Gavin and other people holding keys?

All this still doesn't solve the issue at hand: the complete loss of trust for Gavin from the userbase and it also still doesn't justify why he needs to have those keys. So we're actually back to square 1 either way.

I still can't identify a single rational justification why Gavin needs to hold keys and commit acess. The truth is: there is no reason for it to be that way and that's also why 4 pages into the thread no valid justification came up other than "don't worry, we can disable that alert when it is abused" which isn't exactly an 'on topic reply' and doesn't represent a reason why he needs to hold the keys.

Translates to: "Gavin and nobody else needs to hold the keys because we can disable them when he abuses them" isn't an argument that's valid or made any sense because according to this logic you could give the keys to everyone on this thread and then some 500 people more just because "you can disable the message in case of abuse". So, no, that's not a valid argument.

He just stated that it is kept a secret for security reasons and you start asking him question about it. Stop doing that.
Let me tell you how many have the keys: definitely more than 1; definitely less than 10,000. As for the part in bold, the simple answer is no. Why would someone tolerate that behavior?

There isn't a complete loss of trust for Gavin. You're pulling this out of a hat. I still trust Gavin and I'm part of the userbase; thus your statement is invalidated.
Enough with the Gavin is bad propaganda. If they think it is okay to let him keep them, then he should keep them.

Update: You probably don't trust keyholder Y, but you don't know his identity. It loses credibility for you, but not for the people who don't trust him.

Well if Gavin keeps holding alertkeys then the whole alert system looses a lot of credibility because right now i can't trust the alerts since i don't trust Gavin but that only as a note on the sideline.

I still am looking for a justification why Gavin needs to hold said keys at all. Please someone provide that!

If that were to happen, then as gmaxwell said, there would be a new alert that cannot be canceled and cancels all previous alerts that states "Alert Key Compromised" At that point, I would assume that the dev team would change the client to have a new alert key and simply not distribute that key to Gavin, thus solving the problem. However, that is not needed right now and is much more hassle to do because some people would have clients with the old key and some with the new. This means that if an alert was needed such as in the yesterday's problem, the same alert must be sent twice with both key's signatures in order to reach everyone.

What alerts would you not trust? Use your own brain. Obviously an alert such as "URGENT: Upgrade to Bitcoin XT NOW" should probably be ignored. Every legitimate alert sent out links to a page from here: https://bitcoin.org/en/alerts.

Since no current member of core has been reported to have this key, that could become an awkward and most troublesome task.

Your knowledge is quite wrong. There are most certainly people on the core dev team that have the key. I'm pretty sure that gmaxwell has the alert key because he said this about the recent blockchain fork. He is referring to the alert sent out. Note the "I"

There is in fact an override option that makes an alert cancel proof. Go look in the code. alert.cpp, line 178 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/alert.cpp
gmaxwell said it too.

Yes. I just found this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2dz9ri/why_in_the_world_does_theymos_have_the_private/cjuu360

But since Gavin sends out all alerts, he could also send out an override making that failsafe a double-edged sword. Didn't Gavin send out the alert yesterday?

In my view, the entire alert system should be stripped from the client. It is a point of unnecessary centralization with abuse potential.

He may have sent most, but I don't think he has sent all of the alerts

He cannot override the failsafe. The alert key compromised alert has a fixed message and cannot be canceled. The message is specifically
From this code block at line 178 in  alert.cpp  (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/alert.cpp)
Even if he did send out this failsafe alert, it wouldn't do him any good. People would check the bitcoin.org website where they got the client and not go to Gavin for the client. If Gavin committed code to change the alert key and put the new client on the bitcoin.org website, other committers can revert that change and remove his commit privileges thus preventing Gavin from changing the alert key to something that only he has. The other core devs can then change the alert key, put up the message about alert key compromised on the network status page (don't need to send the message, Gavin already did it) and put up the new client on bitcoin.org without Gavin's interference.

Thank you for this information.

--
http://puu.sh/iO2Du/bd1f83ce3a.png
--

I guess this would mean that whomever owns the domain bitcoin.org is the ruling controller of Bitcoin.

Nope. The code for bitcoin.org is open source and has multiple committers just like Bitcoin does. It is also hosted from github.
Actually, I don't think Gavin has commit access to Bitcoin.org, but I'm not sure.

See this page: https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us

Gavin currently holds the alert key to Bitcoin Core.
Am I correct to presume he also holds the alert key to XT?
So both?

Who is confirmed/unconfirmed having the alert keys to Core?

I want to press this issue since it seems to have fallen through the cracks, especially since Gavin's allegiance is clearly with XT. Also, I wouldn't put it past Hearn to try to get the Core alert key from Gavin.

I could see an alert key being abused in a time of crisis.  Say, for instance, that XT forked.  An alert could dampen down use to the advantage of one strategy or another.  Probably the biggest risk of abuse would be to induce upgrades of Multibitch-class clients to a version which would split a users coins between forks in such a way that was not to the user's advantage (by formulating spends in a certain way.)

Alert keys seem like a likely place for a broad range of participants to exercise some control.  I could imagine, say, half a dozen of them chosen from a pool of core contributors as well as other actors.  Some by user vote even.  When an alert is issues, each key would be represented as being pro, con, abstaining, or absent.  This could be represented compactly in a GUI as a little color widget or some such.  In this way users could see at a glance if there were universal consensus about the nature of any alert.

I've heard it said that this is a non-problem because alerts have not been abused to date.  To this I would say that certain very possible attacks have also not been seen to date so it is not a totally valid argument.

The alert key for the entire bitcoin network is the same, so that includes XT.

Confirmed to have the alert key: Gavin Andresen, Theymos, Satoshi Nakamoto, Gregory Maxwell
Not confirmed but probably have the key: Wladimir J. van der Laan, Jeff Garzik, Pieter Wuille

Also, please note that there will not be a definitive list of everyone who has the alert key for their own personal safety as well as to prevent attempts to coerce key holders.

Thank you.
I understand all of this except for the XT part. If there is a hard fork, perforce creating two separate chains and thus two competing cryptocurrencies, will the alert key remain the same for both, such that Theymos could issue an alert on XT? Surely there's code in XT that creates a new alert key or alert mechanism. I understand that presently both Core and XT are the same blockchain, but if there is a hard fork, then what? Both parties have mutual access to each other's alert keys?

There is no new alert mechanism in XT.
The alert is for the bitcoin network not a specific client. A fork doesn't change anything about that(unless it is a fork, exactly for that and I am not aware of any fork proposal for that)

Thank you.
I understand this. Bitcoin has had hard forks in the past. Nothing changed with alert keys. I get it. I am well-versed in the technical side of bitcoin.
However, I am probably not asking my question the right way. Instead of asking dumb hypothetical questions to lead the discussion, I'll say it plain.

The responsibility of knowing the alert key and the political ramifications thereof seems to be off the radar in this discussion of XT vs Core.
I'm pressing the issue of alert keys, because I see them as a potential object of a further power struggle between the two factions. The person who gives an alert key agency should be one whom the bitcoin community, devs, and merchants trust. To many people, Gavin has betrayed that trust. Further, although potential brinksmanship, retaliation, or retribution seems improbable, this is a 4 billion dollar market we're dealing with, as well as people's livlihoods, families, and egos.

Moreover, is this not a good time to establish clear criteria regarding the mechanism by which one is entrusted with the alert key?
And why does Gavin still have such authority?

You probably have to ask that to Satoshi.


Although the XT movement was wrong(at least to me), I don't think his alert key should be revoked yet(even if there is a way).

From a technical aspect, it is difficult to prevent Gavin from using the alert key. There is only one alert key, and the private key for that is distributed among a multitude of people. Since it is hard coded, changing the alert key in a future version means that the new key would only work for that version, and the old key for the older versions. This means that Gavin would be able to still send alerts to old versions if chose to do so. The other option would be to cause the alert mechanism to display the static "Alert Key Compromised" message but that would also create a lot of panic.

At this time, I don't think people are discussing the alert key and the political ramifications because of both the difficulty to change the key and the fact that there is no immediate need to do so. There is no indication that Gavin would even attempt to use the alert key and that there are ways to remove an alert put out by Gavin (or anyone else with the key). Furthermore, Gavin is still actively contributing to Bitcoin Core. He works on other fixes and is active on the development mailing list as well as the github.

It is just not a matter, that is seriously discussed, because there is no issue. The alert key, doesn't really give anybody power. It is a message, that shows up in your client. You can happily ignore it. The last alert didn't even show up on my client. I don't really know why.
Furthermore, there is also controversy around other people with alert keys, just look at the censorship of theymos regarding this forum and reddit, there are enough well-known people in the Bitcoin world, who saw that as abuse of power, unlike Gavin who hasn't abused any power.

Oh and what knightdk said:
People on this forum, take the controversy just way more serious than the dev team.

Because Gavin is maybe one of the satoshis that created bitcoin. He cares and he protects from the shills of Blockstream. Its good that a person holds the key that doesn't belong the blockstream crew.

The alert functionality is nearly useless, and the usefulness it had has been outlived. No one ought to have the alert key.

At the same time, is also nearly riskless now that its already there-- anyone with the key can instantly terminate any announcement made with it and, if needed, permanently disable the alert system. Which is why when we proposed removing it, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6260 is wasn't hard for someone to argue otherwise.  In the next release of Bitcoin Core any participation at all in it will at least be optional (though default on): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6274

In the elements alpha sidechain, alerts were replaced with multisignature... but I still hope in Bitcoin we remove the system entirely.  Theymos case of wanting to warn people about serious software issues could be accomplished by things like a transaction sending a specific (high vauled) coin to fees triggering a static message to tell users to check for notices.

The functionality creates inequality, it creates attack surface, its very infrequently used-- and when used appears to do very little good. But the biggest reason I'd like to remove it is that it promotes centeralized misunderstanding of the system. It is an incredibly weak functionliaty: a small collection of people can send a little text message to a (sadly) tiny portion of Bitcoin's users. Thats it. But many people can't help but believe that every system has someone in charge of it, and the alerts give them something to latch onto. As a result of alerts we've had to deal with frequent worthless suggestions like the alerts should be able to control system parameters (like fee settings and block size limits)... people who can't see shade of grey and think that because we'll tolerate a very mild messaging functionality that all sorts of other ill conceieved centeralization is okay.

In the altcoin space this has gone further-- e.g. there are several altcoins that use code based on the alert system to allow (or in peer coin's case-- require) the developer to use their single trusted private key to pin the identity of the chain, overriding the network's consensus process. It's an ugly path, and while the first step down centeralization road is easily argued to be harmless it would certantly save a lot of misunderstanding to clearly not be going down it.

 

I suppose I see things very differently.
I don't see it as a non-issue.
I see it as having the potential to be significant in the Core vs. XT drama.
It probably won't be significant, but nor should the issue be ignored.
Frankly, I find fault in both sides, and I cannot bring myself to openly support either side.
Therefore, I cautiously continue with Core.
Core is the direct descendant of the first Bitcoin client I used in 2010, and I'm most familiar with it.
I have been around long enough to have seen the alert key message pop up from time to time, and yes, it could be abused.
It hasn't, thank god.
I'll leave it at that.

This is what I'm talking about.
Thank you, G.
Now matter how long I've been here, I always learn something new from you.
Straight to the jugular.
I never considered removing it, but that seems like the best approach.
Cheers!

Works for me.  Ultimately I think that people using native Bitcoin ought to be largely capable and invested enough to have other information channels.  A tip-off might be handy, but not worth the various risks.

Those who are using insta-upgrade SPV clients need to develop the trust in whoever authors and supports them.  If that trust is mis-placed, sad day.

This really is a brilliant solution.
So simple too.