Bitcoin Forum

Would you trust Linus Torvalds and his team with a say over your bank account?

Would you allow them to hand your money over to the government?

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Atlas,

we'll jump in there and compete.  Don't like it do some work and you can have the precious.

Again, I ask you this question: Can you write code?

It's quite simple really: Create something which can be used to make completely decentralized decisions about it's own codebase, make a new cryptocurrency out of it and you have taken the first steps toward your aim.
If you really see this as an issue do something about it, actively.

You won't be able to troll people out of this.

I am accomplishing my goal just by letting people know they have a choice.

The beauty of Bitcoin as it stands, is that it needs little intervention to continue running. If somebody sees a problem and it matters to them, they will solve it. We don't need a central guardian. We need to do little. We just need people to set high standards for what they accept when people propose change in their money.

I am encouraging high standards just by speaking.

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

I am fighting hegemony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

I am fighting a coalition of implied force and authority.

Would the members agree to that?

Gavin can't do that; doing so would require a hard fork.

If the members are few and influenced, very possibly. The Bitcoin Foundation could then push out the protocol release and miners might be duped into accepting under its supposed legitimacy.

FTFY


Under anarchistic principles all authority must be justified. Gavin has justification for control over the bitcoin code to the extent it was given to him by bitcoins users and by Satoshi.

It wouldn't need a fork if the Bitcoin Foundation has an implied and cultural authority over Bitcoin and its releases are accepted as law. These people can be given control if their dominance is made gradually.

What does standardization means to you? It means a set, central standard.  Pretty much law.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

It can through influence over government laws and cultural manipulation. If The Bitcoin Foundation is made unquestionable in regards to its standards, then it will have control.

But as a Bitcoin user, if I don't like the updates in 7.0, then I don't have to use it.

It won't matter if 51% of the network accepts it and imposes its rule over your funds. A fork won't matter if the foundation makes that barely feasible.

Linux kernel is a nice thing that very stable in work and very functional. I would like to see developers level of the Linux kernel developers in some open source projects as well as in KDE4 and GNOME3 DE's.

Would you like the Linux developers to have a sense of control over your money?

I think you have very little intellectual respect for your fellow bitcoiners if you think a pretty looking website can impose brainwashed control over the sheeple masses who walk single file into a hard fork bitcoin apocalypse.

It happened with The Federal Reserve Act when it came to Americans and their money. It can happen here.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

No, there are many system critical systems relying on linux. Companies cannot simply change these systems without significant costs. If linux were to suddenly change fundamentally that would prohibit an upgrade for these companies then they would stay at their current linux version and plan for some alternative from there. No one can simply change the linux kernel in such a way. Even if Torvals tried they (IBM, redhat, etc.) would simply ditch him and continue linux on their own (provided they have consensus from many in the community on this).

Linux is successful because it is open, being open also means being open to input from others. Even forking linux does not hurt because good ideas will simply be integrated back to the mainline unless all the manpower switches over to work on the fork.

The same thing is happening to bitcoin no one can just change bitcoin in a fundamental way, build a release and publish it on bitcoin.org and sourceforge. This person would lose all the trust of the other developers. At the end of the day a few people will have to talk to each other, agree on the code and commit it. These people have a shared vision of bitcoin, they will disagree on some parts but agree on most parts.

Gaining trust is much harder than losing trust. So far the bitcoin developers including Gavin have my trust. Thus bitcoin isn't entrusted to one organization or one person. Also, right now it doesn't look like a fork will happen that would have the power to split the community. Such things have happened to a few open source projects mostly because of poor leadership, in fact bitcoin has the advantage that it's founder has already left - thus it isn't anyones pet project anymore, the person with the greatest personal attachment is gone.

I do not share your concerns, these people are constantly thinking about how to make bitcoin better. Your premise is wrong, bitcoin isn't in the hand of Gavin Andresen, no it is still in our hand, we simply allow him to continue his work. If he fucks up and we all agree that he fucked up, then that will be the end of his development on the mainline bitcoin client. We will simply switch over to the version where all the other devs have gone to.

You are afraid that the community will be dumb and simply follow all fundamental changes. I can't help you with that, but I can tell you many would leave the bitcoin main client if some kind of tax were to imposed and flow to some government (which government on this planet do you mean?). If your government outlaws nontaxpaying bitcoin protocol clients then take your anger out on your government not on the bitcoin developers. Or we can see the good side of the bitcoin foundation and think about how a government might consult with them to understand bitcoin better, maybe this kind of communication will be the thing that stops your government from coming up with stupid ideas like outlawing virtual currencies or whatever.

It takes a brain to turn on a computer, oh a some money to buy one.

I can only say I hope you are right. You make good points but as my principle: Money and assets shouldn't be based on trust of certain organizations but on a web of consensus among all people.

We're going to become a fiat currency if we depend too much on The Bitcoin Foundation.

It's not a question of intelligence but human culture. Some people love to be dominated and told what to do. The Bitcoin Foundation could enable power-seekers to gain their power over Bitcoin in whatever vacuums are available: Cultural or otherwise.

Actually Linus exerts quite a bit of top down decisions onto the project. He's convinced of certain things and at times rejected patches because of his personal opinion.

The fact that Obama has veto power does not give me confidence in him either. I did not get into Bitcoins to trust another person with my money.

Well then thank you Atlas for warning us of the impending disaster of our gullibility to the machine-hearted dictators of the bitcoin world.

You know, Satoshi didn't go door to door passing out Atlas Shrugged and warning about the end of the world. He wrote some brilliant code, code which can very well defend itself from any threats through the virtue of voluntarism. Then he disappeared, because he knew good ideas have emergent properties that lend themselves to their own propagation and fulfillment. I think his tight-lipped industry and assurance are qualities many people on this forum could learn from.

I do but I also know about human culture and implied authority.

People will be dominated even when given tools of liberty. Dominance has to be fought off from time-to-time.

I can feel after that. The thing I am trying to make you understand the whole time is that Gavin already had this level of control. He has control over the Git tree which he is aiming to share with this foundation thing. So in a way things are for the better.
In order to solve this issue we would need a completely decentralized approach to collaborative software development which currently does not exist.

That won't matter if everyone gets sucked into the cult of personality. There is no harm in being vigilant.

Atlas, i’m glad you are back in. (even if it is not you)

All I can say is I agree with you. I just don't agree that we should sit back and let things continue as they are. We can try to paint a different future through cultural and social means.

Ah the established substitution of the word authority for hierarchy. The English language is so expressive... use it.  ;)

Atlas: If you agree on it why make the big fuss about it?

There's a difference between vigilance and paranoia.

Often only the fear of something happening is enough to provoke the fallout from that something actually happening.

I personally feel that bitcoin is completely propped up by the sale of drugs, perpetuation of scams, and the laundering of those funds.

Granny always said "You can fuck up a perfectly good things or make a bad thing worse by getting the government involved" Looks like you just got yourself a government like it or lump it.

If I were an MtGox, You bet your sweet ass I would be trying to form myself a committee, surround myself with legitimacy, make every effort to hold onto the funds I have now before the shit comes crumbling down around me. If I were an early adopter sitting on enough coin to plug a sewer pipe you bet I would forming a foundation. If I were a miner with so many dollars invested in hardware that is about to become bricks you bet your sweet ass I would be forming a trust. And I wouldn't make it easy to join either. Fuck all you peons. MINE!

Thank goodness I don't have that shit to worry about. It would weigh damn heavy on me. I have enjoyed the free lunch though. Thanks for that I hope it lasts a little while longer.

He has one of his manic phases again. I expect an equally strong depressive episode cum suicide threat in a few hours.

The only people who "own" Bitcoin are the people who own the copyright to the source code. I see people like Satoshi Nakamoto, Pieter Wuille, John W. Wilkinson, and others listed in the source files as truly owning it. I haven't looked at all the files, but I'm sure you're in there somewhere. Where is the notice for the parts you own?

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote most of the core protocol. As far as we are concerned, he is now defunct, gone.

Gone or not, he still owns it. Not you.

Well, see where this has been taken. Bitcoin now has a ruler, guys. Satashi Nakamoto can now tell you what you and cannot do with your money.

Wow, since all of us agree with Syke, we must be in big trouble!

There IS harm in being too vigilant. You've flown since 2001, right? There are far bigger problems to solve out there than all bitcoiners becoming mindless zombies. Don't you remember how everyone freaked out over p2sh?

What makes you think you understand human nature and implied authority better than the average bitcoiner?

I might not. However, I have seen how things can be controlled through good intentions and a trojan horse of an organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

You make me laugh.

Satoshi has provided us with a license to the source code. As long as we abide by that license, Satoshi really can't say what we do with it. But, for example, if you try to remove that copyright notice and put your own notice in place and pretend that you own it, you could receive a DMCA take-down notice for violating those copyrights. I suggest you pay attention to the license of any software you run.

You're implying I recognize any authority that comes with copyright law.

Sure, you could choose not to... right up until they knock down your door and arrest you.  Pretending the handcuffs don't exist won't help you get out of them.

Uh oh.. is that right? We are only using bitcoin with his permission?

He has given everyone in the world irrevocable permission to use, share, and edit his code.  However, if you edit it and distribute the edited version, you have to share the code for your edits.  But, yes, he technically still holds the copyright for those portions that haven't been modified yet.

Most people were waiting anxiously for the September announcement regarding Bitcoin thinking it'd be a good thing. Sucks that it isn't.
Who wants to bet that this is the result of Gavin meeting up with the CIA and discussing it with them?
Who the fuck is Peter Vessenes and why is he the CEO? What makes him qualified to represent the bitcoin community(nobody should have this ability save for Nakamoto him/her self)? I don't see Peter Vessenes on these forums.
I'm glad I haven't implemented the 0.7 official client. My trust in the core development team is rapidly diminishing.

Okay, I accepted your ramblings in the beginning because you had some semi-legitimate points but now you are just exposing your ignorance of the protocol and the social ecosystem which has sprung up around it. Some of the things you are suggesting are simply not possible (hint: mining pools).

I am not ignorant of the perceived checks and balances people believe in. I just doubt their efficacy in the face of a cult of personality like the Third Reich and other regimes.

Clearly you are not aware of the struggles that developers aiming to improve the protocol via "Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" proposals need to go through haggling with miners and mining pools. Plenty of evidence in the mining and related development forums. If the majority of the network does not accept a proposed change, it doesn't happen, period.

Gavin, et. al. cannot simply ignore the will of the bulk of nodes on the network in order to push changes through. Unlike any other software system the Bitcoin software evolution is very much a social activity. Just like the protocol, which implements a decentralized consensus, the development process requires distributed consensus of users in order to make changes.

From your comments it seems that you haven't read the ample information available on this subject.

I've witness all of this but it just does not bring me confidence. The Founding Father's fought off threats before but without vigilance it decays.

You're saying that you haven't had any confidence in the current system anyway, because "A Bitcoin Foundation" doesn't really change anything except put a public face on what was already going on. In light of this you should probably not be involved with Bitcoin since you don't trust the system.

I trusted it when Satoshi was around and I was here for that. I began to lose trust when Gavin visited the CIA. We can take Bitcoin back from this.

Amen, lets start writing code instead of posts! Are you with me Atlas?!

In your opinion, what are the chances that this new public face will maintain a "hands off" approach to bitcoin?

Wow. Thanks.


Does Linus Torvalds have a copyright anywhere in Linux?

I did a quick search and it appears the answer may be yes.




http://www.itworld.com/open-source/140916/android-sued-microsoft-not-linux

This foundation, and any hierarchy/bureaucracy/centralization of authority in general, is a response to the highly corrupt and invalid social institutions that are the foundations of our culture. Why do we need to pay Gavin to code? Because the false institutions of money, government and religion are the dominant social institutions that affect his life, and he is not afforded the necessities of life, but must compete for them in an increasingly corrupt and deadly game of arbitrary rules called capitalism.

It takes far more effort and resources to construct and maintain an heirarchy than it does to engender and promote holography. This is the reason every such institution eventually becomes corrupt and fails.

Hopefully, the monetary game will be shown to be invalid and a new resource based economy can take its place, which will lead to a reality based society, which has no needs for false authority and associated institutions.

You shouldn't use bitcoin in the first place: your money is stored in the block chain, and the chain could be rewritten by 51% of miners.

You reminded me of this:

Exactly, hence my topic in the "Alternative Clients" section. It would be nice to have a client that is developed by real independent people that are not part of the foundation-gang.

Come from behind is doing something like that last I checked. At least it explains his Anti-Bitcoin-FUD.

Come from behind is doing something like that last I checked. At least it explains his Anti-Bitcoin-FUD.
[/quote]

Seems to me that most FUD is coming directly from the foundation-gang at the moment.

Great, that is the question: Are all human involved systems destinied to be centralized?

People have to agree on some thing in common to communicate, which is a common protocol, and if that protocol is fixed, the decentralization can happen, but anyway some degree of centralization (common protocol) is required to build the system

The centralization becomes a problem if it gets a degree of power to where it can change and upgrade the protocol on a whim.

you just don't get it,

anyone can and always was able to, change and upgrade the protocol on a whim.
But,
Everyone must agree to the change.

so what changed?

not much... the core team is given funding to continue to improve and promote bitcoin, and they now have a board of directors to report too.

so they are doing Exactly what they did before, only now they are more transparent, and have financial back up.

your argument is simply not valid...

I think this adds too much legitimacy to the bitcoin.org client.

[sarcastically] - your right its so unfair, we should we have the bitcoin government step in and put a stop to the foundation.  ;)

"And as an update, several recent client versions have "broken compatibility" by changing the protocol--in particular, the handling of fees given the increased value of bitcoins. The changes were eagerly adopted by the community in general, and the changeover happened exactly as I described, though by successive versions rather than a block number in particular. Because the client with the dormant protocol was accepted near-universally, the change was rolled out live in the next version shortly after. And everything worked like clockwork--you can now send transactions with much smaller fees. – eMansipater Jul 12 '11 at 21:41"

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5605571/is-bitcoin-protocol-future-proof (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5605571/is-bitcoin-protocol-future-proof)

My vision: Ruthless competition between client providers and protocol developers. And it will get to that point as Coinbase starts using its funding.

I hate the idea of a stagnant, single vision for Bitcoin that can be easily usurped and corrupted. That's all I am fighting here. It may already exist, sure. Let's destroy it nonetheless.

I like that.
But again we need a new way of collaboration enable it. I'm thinking about a p2p version control software, you get me?

While agreeing with a lot of your points, this must be emphasized:

The core team does not "report to" anybody.

It is entirely possible that the Bitcoin Foundation and core dev team will disagree on some issues, as they are separate entities, of separate minds.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not going tell the dev team what to do.

That "broken compatibility" statement is factually incorrect.  Old clients may continue to communicate with the network just fine, and old bitcoins may continue to be spent.

The fee changes referenced were not protocol changes.

Jeff: true today for sure.  But what if someday in the future, some folks in the dev team become dependent on foundation salaries or stipends to put food on the table?  How resistant would they be to pressure?

Wouldn't it be better to put in place a donation/funding mechanism for the dev group that was more distributed, crowdsourced, anonymous, and not directly tied to any organization?

That is the rub:  when you find a better mechanism, yes, it will get used.

At present, distributed, crowd-sourced, anonymous donations not tied to any organization do not tend to yield anywhere near the amount necessary to pay a full time developer on a consistent basis, much less a team.

I think most of the miners can contribute part of their work to pay the developers, this is very easy

There are 7200 BTC to be mined everyday, how much those core devs want per day? Say 3 core devs, each get a payment of 100 BTC/day, that's 300 BTC, about 4% of total BTCs per day

And even better, we can pay them at once with each new realase of BTC client, they can even sell the new BTC client if it has great new features

Thanks for point that out, and I'm still use old clients, but even a change in fee is somewhat a sensitive topic, maybe not now