Bitcoin Forum

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

No it isn't, that is how the system works.
Go back and learn why Satoshi designed Bitcoin this way.

If you want a CEO, go to Paypal.

The whole point of bitcoin is to provide people a currency that have no central governance. If you don't like it simply don't use it.

bitcoin doesnt need a CEO

but the boysclub of core need to stop being selfish and circlejerking in their club and learn things like
consensus
compromise
community
co-operation
coexistance

it shouldnt be too hard the first 2 letters of the words are the first 2 letters of their brand name

and dont play games saying core are open to be on the same level playing ground with other implementations.
they chose the word CORE. because they want to be at the centre

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Changes in the protocol only happen when overwhelming necessary. 
Or would you prefer a system where I am in charge? I think today I want to impose a new fee that I receive. No, wait... two fees!

join LN and have atleast 7 types of fee's and the ability to chargeback the entire contents of the multisig even when the close session has been broadcast. (CSV revoke codes)

I love the Wild, Wild West! You could ride a horse around all day, rob a bank, shoot anyone that pisses you off, hang around a saloon all night gambling while getting drunk and grab a whore on your way upstairs to pass out. You want Bitcoin to be a church social, or what?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-45K0alJ8CbA/UWnMC21QBDI/AAAAAAAAPco/-6GZLWjg_bc/s1600/WildWildWest2011ms.jpg

It's not the governance model itself that sucks, but peoples' understanding of it.  If you feel dissenting views or alternative implementations are a threat, you need to rethink your stance.  The bigger threat is centralised development and users having no alternative but to run the only "approved" code available.  If all developers were forced to agree, that means all users would have no choice but to agree as well.  There should be no "harmony" in this regard, because that's far more dangerous in the long run.

Can everyone please get the concept into their heads that alternatives and choice are not only a good thing, but a vital thing.  Dissent is our safety net.  Never think you're better off without it.

For Bitcoin to truly remain trustless, we can't place trust in a centralised group (and definitely not a CEO).  It's down to the users who secure the network to determine what code they want to run.  Not a single group deciding for everyone what that code should be.  If there's no alternative, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with and you should just abandon the whole damn thing.

If you don't want the "open wild, wild west of consensus", go play with Ripple or some other bankster crapcoin where you don't get a choice about what the code does.  But stop trying to force that warped mentality on the rest of us.

I agree and disagree. the major decisions need to be centralized because these guys are all have a pissing contest. The rest that is decentalize is working fine. Stop the pissing contests.

I would rather have bitcoin the way it is rather than having a CEO or anything like it.  You do realise that you can leave bitcoin at anytime if it annoys you that much ?  

decentralisation is here to stay, and all those who love freedom will choose a decentralised environment over a controlled one.

The model is proved to work perfectly since 8 years of track records. The decentralization is the key success of Bitcoin, if you want a CEO to manage it...you will transform it into a bank and nobody want that.

People will always disagree on some topics, but this is the human nature.

Pissing contests will continue until one side gives up or gives in.
This is how most human governance systems work.
It will either be a congress with discussions and fighting and slow change or
a dictatorship with changes at the whim of a glorious leader.

I think, you are obviously wrong here with your plans. Apparently you don't understand anything about Bitcoin and the very reason why it is valuable at all: decentralization. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and stay with fiat. Good luck with it.

It's not the first time that I find you engaging in nonsensical gutterspeak. Please at least try to think a bit more, before screaming around utter nonsense.

While you strictly demand harmony and consensus for Bitcoin, you seem to have problems finding it for yourself. That said Bitcoin has made great progress technologically and economically in the last years as a decentralized system.

ya.ya.yo!

Technically speaking there is no need to even have any form of governance or development, there is no real necessary need to have anyone developing it beyond people wanting for Bitcoin to be developed more. If there was no desire, Bitcoin would carry on without any issues being fixed and no-one would have to worry about being governed.

Consensus is a terrible system, but there are no good alternatives. A large majority of forms of governance suck ass.

true, if the government interferes too much, there will be taxes and a lot of things that trouble, then what's the difference with other financial institutions

Why are you so angry?

There are some issues,but i`m sure they are going to be resolved.

Who do you suggest for a CEO?

A decentralized structure of governance was meant to be messy. It is either you love it or hate it and with BTC this is what you get. You are always free to go elsewhere if you do not like it. You could also decide not to take part in the political side of the community.

When we speak of governance we speak of centers. The word bitcoin governance means that there are people who are controlling and has a rule on bitcoin. Bitcoin is in fact free from any governance, thats why we are all saying it is a decentralized system because it has no center an no one is controlling it. So to say that governance sucks is not the right term but the term should be " bitcoin is free from governance".

The fact that it's decentralized, we do not have CEO here, we are our own boss and without CEO will give us full privilege to spend our bitcoins in a way we prefer, that's how simple it is because you cannot the system that was designed to be this way.

Op you have completely misunderstood the concept of Bitcoin. It was made decentralised for a reason so to help people and prevent it from being controlled. Which ceo will actually benefit us. Until you are planning to become one, look if we wanted to use a centralized system, we won't be here. As far the fighting that yes, there won't be any end to it. Even having a centralized system and a ceo won't solve it. Your idea is against Bitcoin and it's philosophy.

And having a CEO makes things better? Obviously not, So what if they were fighting on reddit? None of them can even handle bitcoin because again obviously no one can control bitcoin(every users control's their own amount of bitcoins) Let them fight anyways it won't make things better or worse(their opinion would always be their opinion)

Bitcoin doesn't need a CEO... That's a gateway to ruining things.

Bitcoin don't need any governance because even though governance is not involved many people happy with it and saving their money for their future need. Bitcoin is one of the best digital revolution currency many people are waiting for it to change the world which is decentralized between people itself. If you don't like it than just don't use it.

If there will be CEO, there will be more mess than the mess you are talking about bitcoin have right now.
CEO, Company, Firm behind any coin have never done good, for example look at how ETH is messed up right now and also look how CEO of Ethereum foundation dumped his holding to have world tour.  ;D

I don't think so as so many of us here attracted to bitcoin due to its been centralized since Mr.Satoshi invented bitcoin, why do we need a CEO, there's no point which we could choose and induct one even they fight each other. Nobody really control bitcoin and that's how it works until the end of its time, we need to compromise not CEO.

The fact that they are bickering like little school children are signs of a healthy system. It gets nasty some times, and there a big bucks on the line

for the victor... but in the end... their blood, sweat and tears will not be worth shit, if the majority do not reach consensus. Just imagine that you

have spend years investing time into a project and then when you submit the fruit of your labour, it gets shot down by the majority. Let's hope

this ends soon. 

Indeed, it has been said that bitcoin is the worst form of currency, except all those other currencies that have been tried from time to time.

the core theme of bitcoin was a decentralized system so its fine working as it should be. it doesnt need any ceo or controlling authority

Bitcoin designed to be annoymous and to be not centralize and satoshi made this coin because centralize money sucks. Government always  interfere it because of monry can manipulate things and specially to those who are greedy of money in the government.  :-\

We need a CEO because Bitcoin doesn't scale today and for the last two years people have been trying to reach a very easy solution (change to 8MB blocksize limit) yet nobody will agree to anything.  Two years of pissing around is called an impasse.  With a CEO, they would have chose something.  Even if they chose the worst of two paths, it would have been better than not making a choice.

Today, we have 30,000 stuck transactions, impossibly long wait times, high fees and we are no closer to making a scaling choice.  Finally, good companies spending millions of dollars ($132 million) building very cool bitcoin supporting tools, are giving up and moving on to other things.  i.e. Circle.  

Core/Blockstream fucked Bitcoin by crippling it so they could introduce their proprietary 'off chain' scaling solution, for a fee of course.

There is no need of a CEO or a controlling authority. If CEO is assigned and a working management is created for its functioning sure the price movement gets controlled by the authority and not based upon the users and the circulating capital.

But what could it change?

Accepting or rejecting an update to Bitcoin would still be a prerogative of miners and to be accepted such an update would still need consensus, i.e. 95% of miners agreeing, not developers, right? But miners most likely would be even more opposed to that idea that would make them yet more unwilling to accept further changes to Bitcoin, despite more robust and straightforward development of updates in case some CEO takes over Bitcoin development

If Bitcoin has a CEO, it will die.
I have no respect for you guys, who joined the Bitcoin community, with the only reason to intrigue, disrupt and force stupid changes. You shouldn't be here in the first place if you don't like, what you have once joined.
Go and create whatever shitcoin you want, with a blocksize of your own fouly centralized taste and leave Bitcoin alone already!

As human beings and not sheeps to follow others is the flock we don't need any shepherd. Under this reasoning people other times they agree and others not. If I want a skillful CEO I will transfer all of my funds in a bank and I will trust the bank manager. I prefer bitcoin because I don't trust neither banks nor their managers.

we love decentralization, we love freedom we don't need anyone to control our currency and we don't want to be controlled, that is why we join bitcoin and crypto currencies world, if we want some CEO or any ruler to control the currency i will just used fiat, maybe you hate this kind of currency but we love bitcoin, if you hate it just simply don't used it

We can agree to disagree or agree but I don't want to have a central ceo or body to govern how bitcoin will work ,if they control bitcoin then people will look for another coin for better decentralization.

If you don't like it, there is a trivial answer:
1. Fork the code - call it CEOCoin or BitcoinCEO
2. Fork the block chain 1000 blocks from now for example
3. Convince some miners and users that your fork is better

Instead of complaining here and doing nothing about it, you'll have empirical evidence as to the number of people that agree that bitcoin "needs a CEO".

[ And 1 and 2 are trivially easy to do, btw. ]

I don't see any problem in current system and no need for centralization and governance. That would change the very esence of Bitcoin. Some CEO and similar stuff isn't needed. Bitcoin was created with aim to avoid any centralized governmental system and it's doing well.

Yes exactly ! What the hell is this guy even going on about ? CEO ?? Do you know what a CEO is ?
The remarkable new system is already here and who exactly do you refer to when you say we are not working constructively and together ?
Mess ?? What mess ? What are you even on about ?

I think he is on about your mama. 

You have no idea what you talking about. Please stop using bitcoin. Its not ment for people like yourself.
So you want to be co trolled and governed ? Wow you must be a communist supporter.

 ;D ;D I want Satoshi then. If it's him, bitcoin having a "CEO"/someone to direct and lead, then I personally have no problem with that and will definitely support him.  ;D ;D
If you can bring him out,that is.
Otherwise, bitcoin is fine as it is.

No the bitcoins is not need CEO, it is just needs developers, miners, and comunity and bitcoin is not corporation or government that needs leaders.
On bitcoin everything are very democratic and very very transparent and about problem in the bitcoin network depend on the miners and developer.

If there were a CEO would you follow him and trust that his lead is the best possible way?
This is the problem with bitcoiners, all have their own opinions and refuse to acknowledge others.

The reason why bitcoin was made is to avoid the interference of government, and bitcoin is unique because of decentralization and if government involve here and being centralized then bitcoin also sucks.

Simple logic dude If you don't like bitcoin then you are free to leave. ::)

But the total majority of these dudes still seem to very much acknowledge profits that Bitcoin offers them. In this way, profits can be considered as a sort of common denominator that everyone understands (barring some die-hard individuals, of course). And they most likely forget about what they have been preaching for once they smell the scent of money...

In other words, when money talks nobody notices what grammar it uses

You are very correct thats why satoshi made this invention because of this aims to avoid being controlled by the government and could able be free from taxations and more faster money transfers and full control on your money.I dont think that government could able to make bitcoin centralized and being controlled by them.

Of course not, No one should allow everybody to follow a certain person especially if that certain person who act like the boss don't even contribute from the community aside from bringing too much amount on his pocket. All of us has our opinions yet we do not always refused and never acknowledge yes we do just like you do(you are a bitcoin user right). For those who refuse to are IMO those who understand its concept

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, to the people who do mistakenly believe that having a CEO would be a good idea, I ask firstly:  

Do you honestly think there would be any less controversy and debate over who the CEO should be / how they should be selected / what the eligibility criteria should be / how long they should hold the position for / under what circumstances could they be overruled / what precautions would need to be in place to avoid bribery or lobbying / etc, in contrast to how we should approach scaling?  I can envision those particular arguments raging for just as long, if not longer.  Rather than speeding things up, I suspect it would bog down the project for years to come.

Then, secondly, once we theoretically got all that sorted:

How do you encourage (or force) all network participants, including those securing the blockchain, to only run code in accordance with the wishes of this supposed CEO?  Aside from making the project closed source (which wouldn't stick because those who don't want to conform still have our current open source code), you would have to restrict the code that the network would deem compatible, for example, ignoring blocks mined by alternative clients, which would immediately result in a hard fork.  The CEO could make any decisions they like and take the project in whatever direction they choose, but you can't make everyone else tag along for the ride.  People would keep running the existing code if they don't agree with having a CEO or simply don't agree with what the CEO wants.

So along with my prior post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1706930.msg17102720#msg17102720), where I point out that it's a horrible idea that runs completely contrary to the ethos we operate in, it's also important to note that you really haven't thought this through to conclusion at all.  Bitcoin cannot and should not have a CEO.  It's lunacy.

The matter is not tied to CEO (or lack thereof)

We got stuck with the current system of updating Bitcoin and developing it any further. The idea of consensus may be perfect for a solid project, but it doesn't seem to work very nice in respect to an actively developing one (or the one which requires active development right now). If Bitcoin weren't a currency with billions of dollars invested but some purely software project (say, a text editor), there wouldn't be any problem with forking it into many separate projects since people could safely use the previous versions. But this is not possible with Bitcoin just because hard forking it will crash the whole system

How come that bitcoin governance sucks if no one is governing or managing it in the first place? Bitcoin network never belongs to someone and no one owns it. Bitcoin network is compose of bitcoin users, buyers, and investors that is why it is still alive right now. If you hate the way bitcoin's treating you right now, you just have to simply quit on doing it and find other cryptocurrencies that doesn't suck at all.

It is through criticisms, feedbacks, "fighting" and such wherein we could reach consensus. It is a great thing—at least for me—since apart from the ideas that were laid on he table, new ideas might spawn by combining or modifying each idea and combine as one. It's really not essential for a network of capable individuals to have a governing body to decide which goes what and what goes what; all we need is discussion—be it petty fighting or whatever catastrophe it is—to generate even better ideas that were already presented. Bitcoin is really designed to be a chaos, lol, and you should think about that thoroughly.

Calm down. I guess the governance will inevitable come sooner or later but this will destroy a part of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is a currency which you can use anonymously and without paying any taxes. Why does the government has to know the money we have if we can't really know about their sums, houses and stuff? Bitcoin brings some freedom to all of us.

The very next step we will see is Blockstream lowering their strangely declared: '95%' = consensus.  Once they really need the SegWit to be implemented, this definition of 'consensus' will be lowered to 85%.  Then, if they fail that, they will just lower it a bit more until they get the 'consensus' they are looking for.  Trust me, Blockstream is going to have their altcoin by changing the protocol any way they like.  Blockstream runs the show.