Bitcoin Forum

While reading articles there were two paragraphs that questioned me

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/01/31/the-buttcoin-standard-the-problem-with-bitcoin/

https://www.longhash.com/news/interview-with-emin-gun-sirer-there-are-no-truly-decentralized-coins

Sure centralization is easier that decentralization but does it mean it's impossible? Hell no, I am confident we can still build something decentralized, we can't be perfect within a decade, that's something taking a lot of more years.

I am interested in a debate with people on this subject and the author's opinion

I think those 2 articles are missing out something in them.
Bitcoin and most of these cryptocurrencies haven't really been adopted that much by people yet. I must admit that the rate of adoption has been quite slow but I believe if very many people where to adopted and started using cryptos in their day to day lives. We would then clearly see a perfect picture of decentralization.

What we are seeing right now is a small group of people out of the whole world population who are aware of cryptos and are using them which makes it difficult to see the effect of decentralization.

both articles explain that centralization will remain in our lives and in reality it is like that. even though the decentralization system is in the early stages of adopted and maybe someday it will become a mature system does not mean it will be a solution so that the system becomes a democracy. because there are perpetrators and victims in the event of a decentralized system

Define what you're calling "decentralization system" because there are projects working with decentralization since about 20 years. (Bitcoin is not the first decentralized money btw). Are there mature enough? I don't know but as I said people don't care about decentralization if you want to "shock" them, show them the money. Money, it's all that people see

I'm not worried too much about centralization of mining, because Proof of Work is based on game theory - cheating is not profitable, following the rules is. As long as the network of full nodes is decentralized, the attack surface remains very limited and predictable. Contrary to a popular opinion, miners don't control Bitcoin, they can't change the rules, they can change user balances, etc.

Bitcoin has won its biggest battle against centralization in 2017, when SegWit2x and Bcash were rejected by the community, and as of now I don't see any big threats to Bitcoin.

The hardest part is when people think efficiency should be prioritised at the expense of decentralisation.  It's an easy trap to fall into.  Even I was a little guilty of that mindset for a time.  I know better now, though.  It's just something we have to confront when it arises.  Hopefully it will become easier over time as Bitcoin grows and we can more clearly recognise the benefits when compared to more centralised alternatives.  I think it'll be pretty self-evident at some point.



Concurred.  The alignment of incentives holds as true today as it did at the inception of the Bitcoin network.

Decentralization is the key element of crypto currencies. Advancement in technology makes easier to implement decentralized system in many sector. Because it offers flexibility and speed when compared to former. Similarly, we are going to a financial sector which is decentralized and because only this way financial sector can fit into our age.

mining is about collating data and then locking it.

thats it

its then the nodes that have the actual power. they can reject blocks that dont fit the rules.
in short the only power mining pools have is to decide which transactions to include or exclude.

pools dont have the power to change the rules.

the power to change the rules remains with developers that code the rules and distribute their code.
if developers have code that bypass users ability of choice. EG remove the consensus opt-in of new rules by making things mandatory/compatibility bypassed. then that is the bigger threat

many people think bypassing consensus is great as it makes changes easier/faster to administer. but the downside is... guess what. making it easier/faster to make changes.

pools cant make changes
devs can

learn who the real threats are
especially when the devs hate having opposing teams to keep them inline
especially when the devs hate having to play using consensus and prefer by-passes
especially when the devs hate having to work on a lvel playing field with other teams and instead want to be the only core/reference/fullnode/implementation

as for those assuming mining is a threat due to "50% china".. thats just the comedy FUD of racists
firstly the hashrate distribution is actually more diverse then the racists chant

there are 20+ pools
there is one main brand of node

even the top pool which people call bitmain is actually not one team. there are multiple facilities in multiple countries with multiple mindsets. did you know that the blocks tagged as just 'antpool' have half a dozen facilities. this can be fact checked by noticing the half a dozen DIFFERENT coin reward addresses they re-use. and also double fact checked because some of the facilities are accepting of segwit, some are not. which shos diverse management. and then when you geolocate th facilities you will see they are spread out over san fran, georgia, iceland, hongkong, mongolia

yet. when it comes to developers
one team called core. REKT campaigning any diversity off the network, mandating people follow cores roadmap or be found thrown off the network

but hey. if you think losing a couple transactions for an hour until they get reconfirmed by another block is a bigger threat than a dev team that implement changes without consensus.. then let that be your weakness in understanding the security of decentralisation

It's not this simple. Bitmain operates a lot of hardware on behalf of clients, who can pull the plug at any time. The Bitcoin Cash war showed they have far less mining resources than previously thought. Miners have incentive to leave their pools if they're threatening the protocol.

Competition in the ASIC manufacturing sector would be welcome, though. What's the breakdown on those numbers? Bitfury is still relevant, right? I know GMO was a major disappointment and I've heard nothing good about Ebang. Who else is there? Any news on that horizon?

bitmain dont make the hardware.
comparison.. if bitmain was Asus. then TSMC would be AMD

bitmain dont control 50-80%
bitmain dont operate alot of hardware on behalf of clients
comparison.. if bitmain was a state the mining farms would be private land owner just paying taxes

Decentralization is harder because we are talking about an autonomous project, in other words, the engine should work alone to have a decentralized project. That's the success key on this kind of projects.

If you think about a business like Microsoft or facebook, with all the control they try to handle is impossible to make from those decentralized projects. But Bitcoin can work that way because it doesn't need a boss.

unfortunately the internet nowadays is filled with idiots who keep creating websites and publish a lot of bullshit.
the first article is from someone who is caught up in the Bitmain drama and is just creating a clickbait based on his imagination and is using dramatic statements such as "the 51% apocalypse in 2014" followed by talking about "bitcoin" to make it look legit. a quick search can tell you that the thing in 2014 was literary nothing and it was in fact from GHash.io and there was no 51% attack.
and both articles suffer from the same naivete of not knowing the difference between a miner and a mining pool. they think they are the same which is why they make stupid statements such as "Bitcoin’s blockchain is constructed by 19 mining entities". of course most part of these two are intentional drama feeding on the lack of understanding of the readers.

regarding your title, of course decentralization is hard. in fact it is more like a non stop battle to keep it that way. but when it comes to mining, you can only call it centralized if  a handful of people control a large amount of the hashrate not the pools that only connects the actual miners from all around the world.

Seems like you ignore the point in OP and continue to define "decentralization" in your own terms, which is unclear. I'm not really sure what kind of decentralization we're talking about, is it: the power to change the rules, how new money come into circulation, deciding which transaction is valid, and so on.

Either way, I believe this topic is broader than we think and as pooya said, sometimes people mix imagination and reality to support their stance.

Certainly. Today if we pay attention to the ranking, we will see that some centralized moneys are in the top 10 and what should be understood is that people just concerns is the money that can be used today and more is better. The rest is unnecessary anyway.

'Remember the 51% apocalypse in 2014?'

That was some shouting on Reddit and then once it looked like a danger it instantly faded away.

'Bitcoin’s blockchain is constructed by 19 mining entities'

How can someone be asked their opinion on this when they don't even know what a mining pool is?


Bitcoin is the one of the extreme few still attempting to remain decentralised. Its developers, users and miners at least have the gumption to realise how important it is, even when its implementation is far from perfect. Most other projects never had it in the first place or gave it up.

I agree with the opinions of Frank1 and ETFbitcoin, the mining process is not part of a decentralized system. True, what Franky said is that mining only functions as a system supervisor, so that when someone tries to make a duplicate of bitcoin it will be confirmed by the mining system. I think the term decentralization is final that the system is transparent, is not regulated by any authority (CEO) or institution, and without intermediaries.
Bitcoin is able to answer all of that. As for the altcoin case, I feel doubtful. The article mentioned both do not have the right data and logic. I think they make arguments based on price perspective or price manipulation, not on the bitcoin decentralization system.

There are definitely incentives against egregious majority miner attacks by pools, but it still represents a nonzero threat.

Let's not forget that in its heyday, the operators of GHash.IO engaged in double spending attacks. Here is one such example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321630.0). The less hash rate in the hands of any individual operator, the better.

It's a sure thing that decentralization is a lot harder than centralization because decentralization involves a distributed system and building such things are harder than building centralized applications.
But anyway, as the technology is improving day by day, decentralized applications are increasing. Programming languages like Solidity has been created to build smart contracts and dapps.

I think we should be talking about at least two types of decentralization: that of mining and of possession. Mining is indeed dangerously centralized in the hands of a small bunch of people whom I don't find trustworthy. Is it bad ideologically? I guess it is. Does it have major impact on cryptos? I don't think so. The thing is that miners can't do much. They don't influence the price directly, and they can just keep mining or stop mining. If they keep mining, nothing changes. If they stop mining, some still will and the difficulty rate will probably have time to adjust (if a half stops mining at once, the rate will most likely adjust in about a month anyway). If we turn to holders and traders - here I'd say we have a pretty positive picture of a seriously decentralized market. If we look here (https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html), we can see that while there are some big holders of bitcoin, at least a couple of thousands of bitcoin wallets have to act at once to make a big difference.

@franky1

I like reading your posts even if I often disagree with you but you're too much against Blosckstream. Now how would be Bitcoin without it? A total mess maybe, what do you prefer?
Something I never understood from you is you still own bitcoins, knowing your opinion I wonder what do you expect so? Or you secretly moved to Btrash?

im not interested in the altcoins.

but also its not that devs get funded. its the actions that occur due to their funding.
it would have been better to not have a single team of devs funded by the same group. especially when that same group then make a roadmap, not just for their implementation, but for the direction the NETWORK should take. thats my issue

if core just wanted to be a level playing field implementation along side other brands. where core would have actually come to some united agreement with the community in 2015 about many different things we would have advanced the bitcoin network alot sooner and alot more diverse people would have seen alot more diverse features implemented.

did you know that at the original late 2015 meetings if core actually held onto a lengthy agreement of then a segwit2x proposition. blockstream would have got segwit implemented sooner AND the rest of the community would have got more utility for legacy transactions. other features would have/could have ben implemented too... but no. it had to be the blockstream paid devs way or no way. which then causes the community divides

w would have also seen many businesses not get segregated off the network, we would have seen less coders making altcoins but instead happily innovating bitcoin under their own full node brands. bitcoin would have been alot stronger and more united by having more diversity

there are literally hundreds of businesses in the crypto industry (thousands, but some are home/hobby business) so its not that hard for talented coders to find employment. but when the main devs are all circled into one group. and the so called 'innovations' of bitcoin do not positively affect bitcoin, but are done to promote alternative networks designed to push people off the bitcoin network. thats where i have issues

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. its not a bitcoin centric network. its only promoted as a bitcoin centric network purely for investment by screaming the word bitcoin in the same sentance as LN.
LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors. (ever wonder why there was a november segwit deadline and then a sudden price trigger event right at the dates blockstream got paid a tranche of funding the same week in 2017)

if the devs were more diverse where their idea's were more independent and not controlled by some sugar daddy investor. things would be different

'lost'? 12.5
nope
they just didnt gain.
no one expects everyone to win(gain), and then have funds taken off them(lose it). it has always been the case that only 1 person gets the gain.. so those who dont get their block immortalised are not losers. as they were not promised/given anything to lose.. its just a 'better luck next time' thing


what you dont realise is that with factories, hubs and watch towers. thats exactly how things will play out
to even gt within 4 hops of an exchange you would have to be one of their customers which is using them as a factory
imagine there is coinbase exchange they wont want millions of customers direct IP linking to them. so they will set up hubs around them to take the strain. also because millions of users wont want to be masternodes and just want to be mobile wallet apps. they will use watchtower servers to connect their apps to

https://i.imgur.com/57DKCvm.png

now imagine people deposit real bitcoin to coinbase. and then coinbase write offchain/unconfirmed 12 decimal IOU transactions with their hubs. and the hubs make (12 decimal unconfirmed) transactions to the watch towers and the watch towers make them for the users.
so now the users have "funds". (12 decimal unconfirmed 3 levels away from blockchain UTXO) which the channel parties can agree on, because of the chain of unconfirmed 12decimals all lead back and can aggregate back to a UTXO with coinbase happily

now imagine a green user wants to pay a blue user.
count how many hops there are.
now imagine red, yellow and purple are all owned by DCG.
when someone makes a payment they are not paying just under 1 cent once. they are paying under 1 cent per hop. and if it takes 6 hops to get to another individual. thats 5x fees for DCG

then because its based on factory funded channels instead of broadcast funded, to open and close channels users pay their watchtower and hub and coinbase a fee to close. all for the convenience of not having to broadcast onchain. and then coinbase, its hubs and watchtower then re-write new offchain 12 decimal transactions to allow users to re-open new channels
so those red/yellow and purple get open/close channel fee's too...(in other words DCG gets paid 5x fee)

...... or users can avoid factories and the inner branches surrounding coinbase and hope they can self broadcast their own independant channel open and connect to someone thats hopefully not more than 10 hops away from coinbase(which even so. they still end up paying DCG more than just 1x fee) once the payment gets to the fringe of the inner branches surrounding coinbase if the particular route has to go through the inner branches

its the same "routing" as banking.(in america the links between banks are called routing numbers)
town banks link to regional banks which link to HQ. that way the HQ doesnt handle millions of customers direct, but each town bank(watchtower) manages ~8000 customers yet the real 'value' is held at the HQ(fortknox)

in the UK. banks dont care much about people swapping banks, because ultimately its all owned by either Bank of england or bank of scotland
in the UK. phone line providers dont care about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by openreach
in the UK. gas providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco
in the UK. electric providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco

yea a few percent of cases will have independent channels. but when it
costs 10x+ fees due to many hops.
involves praying that the independent channels are online 24/7,
involves knowing it will cost you onchain fee's to closeout,
involves hoping the independent routes have funding to even allow payment hops..

eventually people give in and just play by the oligarchy game for convenience... and thats the point of their game

you think they can generate hundreds of millions USD from lightning routing fees? at small fractions of a cent each, you must be really bullish on the lightning network's growth! :P

i only see a hub-and-spoke model developing to the extent that it's not cheaper to route around price gouging hubs. i don't think anyone will have that much success artificially pumping fees up.

its not about pumping fee's up. its about controlling more then one hop of a route


imagine users setting up independant broadcasted channels.
to have a network where 1 million users are connected involves
hop:
each node being a full node, paying onchain fe's to open/close. AND have
3 channels(onchain fee's x3) and be possibly 20 hops away (upto 20LN fee's per payment)
5 channels(onchain fee's x5) and be possibly 10 hops away (upto 10LN fee's per payment)
7 channels(onchain fee's x7) and be possibly 8 hops away (upto 8LN fee's per payment)
11 channels(onchain fee's x11) and be possibly 6 hops away (upto 6LN fee's per payment)

would you want to split your funds up into 3-11 allotment and hope that all the nodes on a route are all online just to spend one of those allotments and then still be left with the burden of paying broadcast fee's to move allotments when closing/opening channels

..
play scenarios out in your mind. or use some pen and paper and actually run simulations (thus not having to risk actual spending)
you will shock yourself how many people end up choosing the convenience of just throwing all their funds into a custodian knowing they get convenient service. without the hassles..


also ask yourself why do you think the blockstream devs removed the fee priority mechanism and instigated the fee war and really are pushing onchain fe's to be way over 10cents and hopes that $2 fee's become the norm by saying bitcoin is not fit to pay for coffee($3)
its because of these reasons
1. USERS with more than a few channels and set up as masternodes wont want to get paid just a few cents a day from their few channels. so fee's would be cheaper than onchain but wont remain sub pennies for long. it would end up being USERS that push fe's up for their "independant" routing

2. the commercial side will, due to the 'convenience' affect have many hundreds of thousands/millions of users(check out DCG's portfolio of companies) so add it all up.
if a oligarchy charge 0.1cent per hop with a system of being only 6 hops.=$0.006 per payment * million =$6k a day=$2m a year

now imagine with onchain fee's being $2 and greedy USERS wanting to charge 10cents. as its still 20x cheaper than onchain... meaning the oligarchy can outbid them at 3cents=$180k a day=$65mill a year
and thats just from 1million users making one payment a day..... think about it
imagine if you wanted to trade on coinbase and then arbitrage to circle and then arbitrage to another exchange all via LN.
thats 3 payments a day. which is only going to be cheapest/convenient by using the commercial factory/hub model
thats near on $200m a year DCG get from just 1million users

..
i know what your thinking next.
if a oligarchy can make $2mill a year. so can users, but no
many users are not paying other users. most transactions go into services. and as i shown before. those services are walled up by their own team of hubs and watchtowers.

knowing an independant hop model of users is 6-20 hops. for a user who has a 3cent fee per hop to make minimum wage of america. a user would need to have 200 payment looping through it an hour.
users wont have the funding to hot-potato 200 payments an hour and then pay onchain fee's to shift around the allotments per channel

so while the majority are 'convenience' using the commercial hub model. hardly anyone would be using the independent hop model as their destinations are not close by/cheap to reach/funded 24/7. as the only way to get near a service with low fee's is to use the system the service has set up

"Decentralisation is harder than you think"

It really is.

I don't know what the challenges are for programmers in creating code but they will have to get around
our human instinct to "game the system"... even systems we agree with.
I would like to see blockchain voting---1 person=1 vote but it would need to be resistant to...
us humans ;-)

Sounds like a bit of a leap.  And don't even start with your "meander" catchphrase, since you brought this discussion into the thread.  I can discuss points which you raise.  The above belief is all based on one massive assumption that users actually agreed with it and ran code which supported SegWit2x.  Even if Core had released such code, doesn't automatically mean users would have chosen to run it.  Like it or not, users are actually an important factor and can't be dismissed under the absurd belief that devs make all the decisions.  Also, I thought you said it's "not about blocksizes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103186.msg49534698#msg49534698)", so why are we back to talking about SegWit2x for the umpteenth time? 



No one's disputing that you have issues, but businesses are free to do whatever they like.  Some of them chose to support SegWit2x, some of them didn't.  Some businesses are developing for Lightning, some of them aren't.  Some businesses are doing things you or I might or might not support and be funded you people that you or I might or might not approve of, but they're free to do it anyway because permissionless.  Businesses are not the sole factor to consider, though.  The crux of the matter is that you don't like the code that other people and companies are running and that's just something you'll have to find a way to come to terms with.  If things really were as terrible as you keep making them out to be, why are businesses, users, speculators, etc all perfectly content to keep running this code?  It must be a conspiracy, right?  Couldn't possibly be that they're happy with the path we're on.



If Lightning does somehow have a detrimental effect on Bitcoin, users could (believe it or not, since it's just such a difficult scenario to even begin to comprehend   ::) ) simply not use it.  Because if it doesn't benefit users, why would they use it?  At the end of the day, people are going to do whatever they damn well please.  That's the best part about decentralisation.  And that's fine by me.  So by all means keep telling your spooky campfire tales about the Blockstream boogeymen.  Some of us aren't as scared by them as you seem to be.  If Blockstream have plowed money into something that fails, it's not very good business sense on their part.  So perhaps it would make sense for them to make something that is good for users.  Had that thought ever occurred to you?



I can see how someone might come to that rather strange conclusion if they began their reasoning from the standpoint that devs made all the decisions.  But, since that's not even remotely the case, anyone who bases their views in reality will understand that those securing the chain made the choices and ran the code that led us to where we are now.  Try starting from a premise that isn't fundamentally flawed.

devs did make the decisions.

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.
secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

so how about you get on with your life and do some research to actually learn whats really happening so you can stop flip flopping in and out of certain things. and then i wont have to yawn and laugh at your posts so much.

(i now expect yet another boring rhetoric from him or his buddies side tracking the topic to harp on about some other social drama.. so sorry folks for his boring interuptions)

Who told Decentralization is easy specially in a world that everything even how we think, do transactions , what we watch or hear and any other essential thing we do controlled some how by some sort of organization or government so if we are to implement a new invention like blockchain technology that allow us to do everything without any barrier at the early stage the denial is not a surprise so decentralization in the beginning is hard but at the end when world starts to benefit from it everything will start to change accordingly

The client you're running didn't write itself either.  Stop pretending there is only one dev team.  Granted, there aren't many popular dev teams, but since you clearly want to falsely portray the situation as some sort of dictatorship, then I can see why you wouldn't freely admit that other clients are right there for the choosing and it's just that most people don't approve of their ideas.  Because if you admitted that, then your "argument" would be decimated.  

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.  That's up to them, though.  No one is going to agree with hamstringing one dev team to allow others to play catch-up, which, as I recall, was an idea you're rather fond of.  We have a level playing field.  Proposing to make it unlevel in order to assist weaker participants is not how we do things here.  It's survival of the fittest.  Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.  Try having better ideas and more convincing arguments in future if you want people to create and run code supporting those ideas.  



I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network.  Clearly they did.  There were media articles about it (https://themerkle.com/upcoming-bitcoin-core-client-will-disconnect-segwit2x-nodes-automatically/).  The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that.  I will defend their actions.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.  I even stated at the time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077346.msg20773111#msg20773111) I had no complaints about it.  Everything I said then, I will stand by now:


If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.  People can run whatever code they like.  You're still in denial about the fact that users made their choice and the only thing you can do about it is run the client you want to run (and whine incessantly for the rest of forever, apparently).  As I said at the time, "just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on".



I want permissionless freedom and I already have it.  More diversity would be nice, but not at the expense of permissionless freedom.  You want to change the glorious paradise we currently enjoy into some sort of "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything" nonsense and you can literally climb up your own backside because Bitcoin will never work like that.  Ever.  People code what they want.  Users run what they want.  That is decentralisation.  No one is in a position of authority to stop someone from doing what they want.  Just know that if other people don't like what you're doing, you might end up doing it by yourself, because no one is forced to follow along.  You can go your own way by yourself if you want.  If others agree, they can follow you.  Everyone has a choice.  That's the best part about Bitcoin.  That's what I'm preserving.  Unity is not always the best solution.  Trying to stick together whilst simultaneously trying to move in opposite directions is not possible.  It's like arguing that human beings somehow function better when they suffer from multiple personality disorder.  

Your ideas, no matter how good you might think they are, would absolutely weaken both decentralisation and permissionless freedom.  If you ever managed to implement your ridiculous ideas in Bitcoin, developers would simply leave this network and continue developing on another network where they'd be straight back to being perfectly free to code what they want.  And that's the network which would thrive.  You keep talking about "stagnating development", but that's exactly what would happen if we had to have some stupid vote about every future change.  I mean, just look at Brexit.  How much simpler would it be if those who want it and those who don't want it simply ended up on different networks and each went their own separate way?  But instead, it's a total impasse.  No one can agree on anything.  Nothing is moving forward.  Everyone is sick of it.  That's what Bitcoin would look like if we did things your way.

And... saving the best for last:



Yes, some devs made a decision.  And then some users and some miners agreed with it.  So it happened.
  
It wouldn't have happened if some devs made a decision and then no one agreed with it.

You have no argument to counter this.  You will never have an argument to counter this.  

People have to agree for a change in Bitcoin to occur (and if people can't agree, a fork tends to sort it out).  If people agree, change happens.  You can't refute that.  No one can.  Large numbers of people have to run the code in order for that code to have any effect.  That's how it works.  If you don't like how it works, too bad.  The numbers aren't on your side.  If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the numbers are on your side (and pigs fly), then you can implement whatever dumb crap you like.  Until then, keep screaming "social drama", "research", "bypass", "mandate", "meander", etc in a bunch of threads where it isn't even on-topic.  It's pretty much all you're good for.  Derailing threads with mind-numbingly idiotic catchphrases and then trying to blame others when they point out the myriad reasons why you're demonstrably wrong.  Maybe consider a change in tactics?  It's clearly not having the desired effect.

after months and months. you keep on denying the same debate
that the main dev team instigated a ploy to push proper full nodes that were not following core off the network

you have become very boring now.
as for the second part of your post. you then flip flop to admit it. thus undoing your hard work of denying such.
so just stick with a flop or a flop.

gmax admitted he likes the idea of pushing opposers off the network
luke JR admits to being involved in it. there is no point defending them as if they had no part when they happily admit it.

atleast do your research on the falsality your trying to defend. also dont pretend that non-dev users got a choice in the mandate.. as it was all 'compatible' meaning no opt-in required.
as for the opt-out option. it was not a opt out to prevent activation. it was a opt out of the network.
learn the word 'mandated'


you need to learn what consensus is and why it made bitcoin what it was.
true consensus is not about 'forks' sorting it out. consensus is about if there is no agreement. nothing happens. no activation

learn how it solved the byzantine generals issue and how the core devs have literally broken down the consensus mechanism by bypassing it. and are now trying to say blockchains dont work
if you want to defend devs that dont care about bitcoin or the blockchain technology then go play around on normal database forums

but if you care about bitcoin and blockchains will you please do your research and drop your broken record. as your defending nothing by holding onto your echo chamber

any way.
you have become someone that does not care about bitcoin and you just want a social drama distraction.
so go watch some eastenders and be content with that social drama

core only had 35% vote. so they should have stopped and walked away with tail between its legs under their segwitx1

but instead they done a contentious fork to push out th opposition to then fake a majority.. and im using YOUR words so you cant later deny it happenend like you usually do with your flip flops of social distraction

permissionless network means you want users to have no say. no permission to stop devs.
the DEVS wrote the code of the mandate they even wrote the compatibility so that it bypasses true consensus.
it was not a user decision.
you kep saying it yourself that you hate the idea of devs needing user permission. you keep saying you love the idea for devs to just write code and activate it without permission
atleast wake up to your own flip flops and decide if you want to stick with a flip narrative or a flop narrative and stick with one

anyways thats you wanting a dictatorship

LEARN consensus
learn byzantine generals issue

learn how bitcoin became a innovation which core has now eroded away and made into their centralist network with only 'distribution'.. not decentralisation

that is completely off topic because it doesn't even have anything to any mining pool or having hashrate, etc. you don't even have to be a miner to be able to perform something like that. it is just the starter of that topic who is making it bigger issue than it is and linking it to GHASH somehow. otherwise it is another proof of how 0-confirmation transactions are not safe and can easily be double spent.

which is why LN has flaws. and is to be treated as an IOU
its like writing a cheque that wont clear.
you cant then say you no longer owe someone something if the cheque doesnt clear, simply by handing over uncleared cheques

without using a blockchain to confirm transactions at the time of payment...your in a area of zero confirmationed/uncleared cheques environment.
even the LN devs admit to that issue.
LN is a zero confirm IOU environment and no way to guarantee a confirmation later

hense why i prefer to want ONCHAIN decentralisated innovation while certain people only want to ruin bitcoins network in a greedy method to trying to push for offchain unimmutible unconfirmed, flawed networks. emphasis on greed

The big challenge is really make Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general be adopted by the people massively. The problem is that we are still to see this massive shift and nobody can be sure when that can happen...knowing how changing is the marketplace and how many other entities are also fighting (and yes they have the money to orchestrate their campaign if they want to) the incursion of Bitcoin and similar technology. How we then can induce people all over the world to get into Bitcoin. In 2017 and even into 2018, there was this feeling that things were going into this direction but slowly things started to get derailed. Let's hope that soon this dream can start be materializing otherwise Bitcoin will just be one of the many choices people can get into and if there can be no clear and big reasons why they should then the probability is they will not.

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982).  It was an open, publicly available discussion.  It's not some sort of sordid coverup.  You call it a "ploy" because you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.  I call it a pragmatic and sensible solution which kept the network secure.  I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.  More crucially, without the aid of a time machine, you can't change what has already transpired, so your options are either to remain butthurt for the rest of your sad life, or get the hell over it and move on.



There was agreement.  Those securing the chain agreed.  No one cares if you don't agree.  Your numbers are insignificant.  Find more people who agree with you and then you will understand consensus.



No one can "learn" what you think you know unless they start from the same fundamentally flawed premise you did.  Anyone who actually understands Bitcoin will recognise that it doesn't work how you like to pretend it does and that's why no one ever comes to your defence when I'm verbally kerb-stomping you like this.  Start perceiving reality in the way everyone else already can and then you'll be able to figure out why your posts are so woefully ineffective at convincing people your fairy tales are true.

Something I don't understand. Why people are only focusing on LN like if it will be the last innovation to Bitcoin and people won't have the choice to use it. IF it's a "cheque environment" then like IRL you're not forced to use it and it didn't mean we won't get a better alternative then.
That's what BIPs are for.

doomad.. DO YOUR RESEARCH

august 1st was a contentious fork to disconnect nodes that disagreed with wanting segwitx1..
(to falesly improve the % approval of segwit by only showing approval nodes/pools)

then they disconnected the segwit2x nodes to further fake the approval% of segwit1x

there was no true consensus of segwit1x because CORE threw people off the network to fake an agreement count


consensus is and should not be about throwing people off the network to fake an agreement
consensus should be about no one gets thrown off before activation. if there is no majority agreement then a feature simple does not activate

core got the activation not by majority agreement. but by throwing people off the network to get a faked agreement by counting less voters by ignoring those objecting

the nodes that were seen as not objecting were mainly nodes that were told were 'compatible' . EG were told even their abstaining would be treated as agreeing

any way. you seem to want core dominance and central control where core always win by deceptive consensus bypass techniques.

BIPS that CORE moderate <- emphasis

the issue is that core removed fee priority mechanisms to force in a fee war where people are now paying more onchain. this is the ploy to advertise and direct people into being pushed to use LN because its too expensive to stay independant on bitcoins network

imagine the only transport route were cars. core are setting up toll roads and then offering a cheap bus/train network. thus making it real hard for people to want to remain having their own car, and then coming out with the adverts about how buses and trains are so much better and faster and cheaper so everyone should ditch ownership of cars and use commercial buses/trains instead

Decentralization is a spectrum... We could debate this all day.

I am not sure 100% decentralization is needed in all projects. I do see the 100% decentralization of Bitcoin being a huge asset.

Its kind of like the word organic. The definition to some people means natural process some people thing NOTHING man made can touch the process.

I can say that decentralization of cryptocurrencies has been hurt by big mining pools
Over 50% of Ethereum supply is controlled by two big mining pools from China
Ripple is pure premine
From all of that crypto blue chips bitcoin is most decentralized
I have been reading that Amazon can release his blockchain management tool
If that will happen there is a danger that Amazon can take control on any blockchain  except
bitcoin
Miners has to agree on any update or  blockchain fork users have not so much to say in fact
POS is easy to say but POS is creating inflation very fast

Indeed.  New ideas and innovations can come from anywhere, precisely because it's decentralised.  All the people who can't even tolerate the existence of LN would find their time far better spent coming up with something new that other users might find agreeable.  Although it seems like many of the most persistent whiners probably lack the technical skills to do so.  So they have to put all their efforts into making up new FUD instead.  

But if anyone actually goes ahead and implements ideas in code which are not compatible with what other users are enforcing in their own implementations, they shouldn't be shocked to find themselves moving forward without the other Bitcoin users on board.  Bitcoin users are free to do their own thing and leave you to do whatever crazy stuff you might want to do.  Consensus doesn't mean you get to singlehandedly hold up the progress other people are making just because you don't agree with the direction they are clearly moving in and you somehow think your incompatible ideas are better.  Hence forks.

---

I'll be sure to hold a small celebration on 1st Aug 2019 to commemorate the anniversary of your ongoing butthurt.  It's about as close to caring as I'm ever likely to get.



Miners decide miner policy.  Why should Core force their ideas about fees onto miners?  It makes more sense to let the miners decide for themselves.  You'd know this if you researched it, like how you keep telling everyone else to do.  Try taking your own advice.  

Also, one could take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in arguing that it's bad for devs to make all the decisions and then simultaneously arguing that devs should decide fee policy for the miners.  Seriously, which is it?  If you're going to whine about how unfair it supposedly is, could you at least figure out what it is you actually want first?

doomad your boring and just flip flopping

time to move on from reading your core defender speaches.
the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

I fully encourage people to decide for themselves.  If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes.  People should read it.  Here it is again (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982).  

Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it?  Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be?  Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.  

the reason i say you deny it is because you intentionally flip flop. one minute you admit it and you admire cores actions, the next you deny it even happened. which is where i keep telling you to do your research and then just pick one of your narratives and stick to it.. as it has become boring to repeatedly have to reply to either your flip or your flop. because it just seems your more interested in causing the flip flops for social distraction

..
anyways
devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.

if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul
(EG core should have walked off with tail between legs with their 35% approval, and then come back with an improved compromised version that would have got approval WITHOUT needing to do mandated throw offs)
..
the issue is:
devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)
devs throw other options off the network before an option even activates
devs throw people off the network that dont opt for the version the devs prefer.

also the link you provided PROVES that devs were throwing off segwit2x nodes off the network before segwit2x even got a chance to grow a vote to even have the option of an activation.
and the UASF proved that users got thrown off the network BEFORE segwit1x got activation

...
after an activation. fine. if there is too much orphan drama or ddos spamming bad blocks then fine ban nodes. AFTER ACTIVATION. but throwing people off BEFORE activation purely to get a fake approval vote.. that is not consensus

and that is the thing i have been saying all along.. but wee all know you prefer CORE to remove opposers to fake approval because you love core dominance/dictatorship

P.S
segwit2x nodes would have accepted segwit1x rules so throwing 2x nodes off the network was ZERO percent about security. and 100% about core only wanting 1x activated)
..

thus CORE were in 100% control of what got activated.
yep throwing people off the network BEFORE activation. is not protecting the network because at the point of throwing off the network the feature was not even active to of caused issues. the throwing off was purely to get rid of opposers, to then fake increase approval of a feature only core wanted.

no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete

..
again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found

try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes

It's not off topic because you would have needed access to significant mining power to reliably perform such an attack. Without hash rate, you couldn't guarantee winning bets will be confirmed and losing bets dropped. Any non-miner could have losing bets confirmed all day. A mining pool can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain while confirming others (winning bets). This creates expected value for the colluders.


The point is that miners with significant hash rates have incentives to act dishonestly. The worse mining concentration gets, the less Bitcoin's mining incentives work. Attacking 1-confirmation transactions would significantly increase the costs, but it doesn't destroy the double spend incentive. There just needs to be enough value worth stealing and enough hash rate at the attacker's disposal.

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

EG
block 600000 pool a: TX123
block 600001 pool b

imagine malicious pool c came in with a rhashed/re-org'ed the chain to 600002 height that ignored TX123
block 600000 pool c
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

pool A would just make a block later to re-add tx123 ..
block 600003 pool a: TX123

thus pool C wont simply make a chain that ignore tx123 and thats it job done, relax and have coffee.. stop at block 600002
pool C will have to continue to hash away and ensure no other pool gets a chance to re-add tx123 later.
thus its a continual cost for C to keep up this game purely to try to keep tx123 from entering the blockchain later

hense why the 'losing bet' needs to be a significant amount of value for it to be worthy for pool C to continue the pressure to prevent tx123 ongoing.

which is where people say the incentive to mess around with a chain purely to ignore a couple transactions is not big enough, as it takes much longer than just the time of the initial rehash/re-org. the malicious pool has to keep it up for a long time and maybe do many re-orgs if tx123 did appear in competing pools blocks

The attacker would obviously want to respend those outputs to addresses they control at the same time and try to confirm the double spends.

That's why the amount of hash rate an attacker controls matters so much. Just like selfish mining, the expected value is a matter of probability because Bitcoin's mining algorithm is based on a discrete probability distribution (a Poisson distribution). There's never a guarantee that any attack will work 100% of the time, but the important thing is that the higher an attacker's hash rate, the higher the chances of success. The bigger an entity is, the bigger their incentive to attack.

i see what your saying that pool C would
change:
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
to
block 600000 pool c:  TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1poolcaddr 1btc
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

which would prevent
block 600003 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
because tx123 is spent at 600000 back to 1poolcaddr


but if pool C gave up at 600002 and sat back and had a coffee thinking job done game over...
here is what can happen
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
block 600002 pool a
block 600003 pool a
thus pool A and B re-orged back to the original 600000 and then continued on their merry way as if poolC never occured

meaning that pool C would need to continue way way way passed 600002 just to ensure pools A and B didnt re-org back and reconfirm TX123 with the gambling site

It all sounds a bit dramatic, doesn't it?  "Thrown off the network".  Scary stuff.  Except any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  You can follow multiple chains each with their own consensus rules if you desire.  But you don't get to tell me who I can or can't disconnect from my node.  I can disconnect anyone, at any time, for any reason I wish.  If your fear can't handle my right to do that, go play with fiat.



And how will you enforce that?  Oh right.  You can't.  You can express your will in the code you run, but, to the best of my knowledge, no one has invented code that stops me disconnecting someone from my node.



Which client are you running again?  Devs gave you that client, didn't they?  You have your variety.  Why is that not enough for you?  Why do you believe devs are only here so that they can code every ludicrous idea you've ever had?  I doubt that's what they signed up for.  You are so far beyond entitled that it's laughable.



You can't enforce that.  All you have is "should", "should" and more "should".  Also, consensus is happening every second of every minute of every hour of every day.  It's not a "vote" you can "complete".  Consensus is happening right now.  It is embodied by the rules that are enforced on the BTC network right now by those securing the chain.  The rules that are enforced can involve clients being disconnected.  The rules that are enforced mean that miners get to choose fee policy.  The rules that are enforced do not include any of your whiny "should" talk.



We heard you the first dozen times.  We know how you think consensus "should" work.  But the fact that it demonstrably doesn't work like that means you are the one you needs to learn it.  Consensus does mean you can be forked off.  Consensus does mean some users can implement ideas via softfork that you don't approve of.  Consensus does mean devs can code what they like and the code is 100% meaningless if those securing the chain don't agree with it.

None of your idealism and wishful thinking counters the crushing reality of how consensus actually works in the wild.  

^ more flip flops

here he goes again about thrown off the network AFTER activation.. yet he ignores the whole point of PUSHING people off the network BEFORE activation.

consensus is about continually following ACTIVE rules. and then choosing what new features should become active..
the morals of pushing people off the network before a new feature choice is made. is NOT consensus.. its contentious

anyway ill let him flip flop for another year in his echo chamber. as its only wasting his time by him being stuck where he is.


gotta love the warped mind he has
in essense... you can rejoin the network if you give up your objection and code your node to flag that you desire some feature activating.(meaning only option is to show agreement)

.
so where is the consensus CHOICE to actually oppose a feature activation (imagine it being malicious code) if the only options are accept cores BIP or get thrown off BEFORE the bip even activates.

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

Show me where I said "after".  That word doesn't even appear in my post.  Users can disconnect other nodes at any time.  If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  There is nothing incorrect about my statement.  My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation".  If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine.  Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English.  That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying.  It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

You don't have a point.  You just have overly emotive appeals to childish notions of "why can't everyone just play nice together?" and other such "fluffy clouds and rainbows" nonsense.  Sorry, but the real world doesn't play nice.  It's time for you to grow up and accept that life isn't fair and that not everyone thinks you deserve a medal just for taking part.  

Run the code you want to run.  If doing that puts you on another network, that's a "you" problem.  None of us owe you a solution to the part where you want something we clearly don't want.  Your freedom only extends to the point where you encroach on the freedom of others.  If you do that, you are free to leave.  



Oh wow, you're actually starting to get it.  YES FRANKY1, THAT'S HOW CONSENSUS WORKS.  USERS WHO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER BUILD A CHAIN TOGETHER ON THE SAME NETWORK.  INCOMPATIBLE CODE CAN BE FORKED OFF AT ANY TIME TO FORM A DIFFERENT NETWORK.  Took you long enough, but I'm glad we got there in the end.  Well done.  

It's not an altcoin until a fork occurs, but either side can reject the other at any time.  If you're going to run code that proposes an incompatible change, it should go without saying that you run the risk of other users being so vehemently opposed to your change that they may want to remove you from their network.  Consider it an occupational hazard.  Either those proposing the change can initiate a fork, or those who opposing the change can initiate the fork.  But no doubt you'll somehow fail to comprehend this and label it a flip flop as well, or tell me another made up reason why I need to research something, or just make some other weak deflection about social drama or whatever other catchphrases come to mind.  

To give an example to help you avoid your inevitable confusion, the client you are running proposes a change to the current consensus rules.  It runs on the BTC chain and currently enforces BTC consensus rules.  But it also contains incompatible code that has not been activated.  As such, it's an alternative client, not an altcoin.  One option is that users of your client could change the rules they enforce, enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Another option (the one you don't like) is that users who are not running your client could change the rules they enforce, also enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Alternatively, users of neither client change the rules they enforce and things remain as they currently do.  All three of these options are valid.  You do not have the right to rule any of them out.  

It's not viable to have a network where two diametrically opposed sides want to move in completely different directions.  What does it achieve to keep the two opposed sides on the same network, with neither side achieving anything?  We'd still be in a bitterly entrenched civil war, stuck in total deadlock if things hadn't unfolded how they did.  That's why it's far better for those who want raw throughput to do their thing on another chain while users on this chain focus on the things they want to implement.  Both sides get to move forward.  We then get to see which path works best.  Sometimes decentralisation can take the form of different chains trying different things.  If those other chains demonstrate success, we might adopt similar ideas on this chain later, who knows?  



I honestly don't know how you can sit there and claim those are the only options when you are running a client that wasn't made by Core and hasn't been "thrown off".  You have a choice.  You've already made it.  How do you then pretend the choice you've made somehow isn't an option?  It's lunacy.  Other clients exist.  You clearly know that if you are running one.  Try being less dishonest.

Your problem, as I've explained to you time and time again, is that you need OTHER USERS to agree with the choice you've made.  If users agreed with you, they'd be running the same client as you.  Apparently, they don't agree with you.  Keep arguing whatever it is you're going to argue and I'll continue decimating it, but your client has hardly any users.  Nothing you can say will change this fact.  The stuff you want is categorically not what other users want.

Features only activate if users run them.  If code was malicious, users wouldn't run it, so it wouldn't activate.  How can you possibly fail to grasp this?  Stop pretending that the code users have run to disconnect incompatible clients is malicious just because you personally disagree with it.  



As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  

with a decentralized system, the data that we have or the currency we have will be safe, this will cause there will be no doubling of data that occurs, because all systems are interconnected, if there is one false or multiple data then it will be quickly detected by another server , the decentralized system will record all transaction data throughout the world starting from the first time the blockchain is created until now and in the future, so it is very safe.

mr flip flop

if core want to change the rules.. and its core nodes that disconnect opposers. then its not the opposers that need to "rejoin by following the consensus rules again" because if your trying to twist your rhetoric to be about BEFORE activation.. then no rules have changed yet thus the opposers are and would be running the same rules.. OBVIOUSLY

the only condition where opposers would need to change anything to "follow the rules" (as if they are not following the rules).. is if the rules have changed.. thus AFTER
so its obvious your rant was talking about AFTER because thats the only time an opposer wont be "following the rules"

now...
getting to the point of before activation. WHERE RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED. if core are disconnecting nodes BEFORE cores bips activate then your nonsense about "rejoin by following rules" does not apply because the opposers were following the current rules, but were simply objecting and opposing cores FUTURE proposal
thus core nodes were not doing consensus. they were instead being contentious by throwing out nodes simply due to brand bias to fake approval by only having approval nodes left on the network, to get the bip activated.

you also rant about how you as a unique user have the free choice to disconnct whomever you like from your node. but as your link in an earlier post shows. it was not about unique users manually disconnecting nodes pre-vote deadline/pre activation. it was CODE that biasedly wanted to disconnect certain bitcoin node versions.
so you cant blame the users for manually disconnecting certain nodes. it was the devs who wrote code to automatically disconnect certain nodes, out of pure bias to ensure only segwit1x got activated.
and yes. core devs(blockstream devs more specifically) because of how FIBRE(mattblue) functions as the ringfense layer between mining pools and user nodes had the ultimate say in what data streams from pools to the majority of nodes
..
anyways, your obviously trying too hard to defend cores actions. so just keep it short and sweet. you love centralisation and you think the community should just sheep follow core or get thrown off the network

have a nice day
P.S you seem to be very emotional with all your insults. so i wonder what is behind your motives. why you are so hard nosed dedicated and devoted to wanting core centralisation.
let me guess.. youll flip flop about how consensus should not exist because now you believe that miners and users should not have a choice because that means that devs need others "permission" and your beliefs are that thre should be no permission..

to which ill tell you again.. learn true consensus

also if someone was to check post histories they would see that YOU are the one throwing out the majority of insults. but to address the concern you have about alternative clients being sheep. ill reword it to your buddies prefered buzzwords. seeing as you love their words
"compatible"
"downstream"
"filtered"
"outerlayer"
"not part of the peer-to peer relay layer"
"stripped"
"not quite full nodes"


this statement here proves you have no clue about satoshi's consensus solution to the byzantine generals issue. which made bitcoin so revolutionary

and why core bypassing it purely to gain dictatorship goes against the whole point of decentralisation..

.. but hey, your buddy groups echo chamber is that of wanting a commercial network that does not use a blockchain(LN). so i can see why you dont care to learn about why blockchains and byzantine generals issues and consensus, and why such are not important to you.

you might aswell just go play around on a LN forum and really show your admiration for it, as your wasting ur time on a bitcoin forum by showing your obvious lack of care and understanding of what made bitcoin bitcoin

It shouldn't be this difficult for it to sink in.  If users choose to enforce a rule that says bit 6 and bit 8 are no longer valid, that is a change in the rules.  It's immaterial if your proposed feature has or hasn't activated.



Nodes began enforcing a consensus rule that meant nodes are disconnected for flagging invalid bits.  If you were flagging bit 6 or bit 8, then you were in breach of the rules nodes freely chose to enforce. 



Rules did change.  Users ran code to enforce the change. 

No one cares what you believe the rules were. 
No one cares if you think they hadn't changed when they had.
No one cares if it was before, during or after proposed features in other clients activating.

Users ran the code and it happened.  But please keep achieving absolutely nothing by refusing to acknowledge events as they were, rather than how you would ideally want them to be and whining that it doesn't work how you think it should.  There is no flip flop, you simply can't accept reality.

^ doomad still has not learned consensus /byzantine generals issue. and still wants to pursue his mindset that core should control the network without community majority triggering the activations of new rules.
his viw is not of bitcoin as it was suppose to be 2009-2013.. but of the view of how bitcoin is now under control 2013-2019
which is the problem
he will continue to argue that bitcoin is now centralsied coded by one group, while then social dramatising (flip flopping) that its then not the case. meaning he is just wasting time with his flip flops..

though its clear what his deep down desire is.

foolish now to even keep talking to doomad as he will just continually perpetuate his belief that central control is what bitcoin was designed for, and will continue to ignore the whole consensus/byzantine generals thing that made bitcoin such a unique/innovative/revolutionary thing.

may doomad one day wake up to the purpose of blockchains.. or stay in his echo chamber of blockchains are useless... who knows. but no point trying to get him to do real research outside his echo chamber. as he seems too deep in it to even want to think independently

oh well
moving on

@frankky
Just throwing an idea

A society cannot function and evolve without leadership. Without rules, it becomes a mess and anarchy and we'd live like 500 years ago with no progress. A consensus between a few people is possible but a consensus with everyone is just impossible and it also implies notions of compromise

Bitcoin needs leadership to progress. Maybe Blockstream is just conservative, and not surprising when you see the soap opera. And I know that you're going to say about DCG, even if you're right about it it's a different point.

The social dramas you talk about are brought on the table by the forks
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

Maintaining decentralization while upholding strong security mechanisms is the tricky part, most people give up on the security for more tx throughput but like yourself I don't think we need to sacrifice one to achieve the other.

Just need to consider more 2nd layer solutions or create alternative systems which can encompass both, the solution will probably be based in math given that it is the universal language of truth.

but the whole point of bitcoins invention/revolutionary technology is that satoshi solved the problem of allowing rules to be followed and new rules adopted by decentralised individuals without needing a central leader, without mandates and without throwing off the network to get new feature activation.

seems some people forgot what consensus is(or never learned it) and have instead become devoted to those that abused/bypassed consensus because they feel that bitcoin needs leadership.

all in attempt to remove diversity and decentralisation. just so they can get centralisation and distribution(which is different than decentralisation)

the whole revolutionary thing about bitcoin is the no need of leadership. but that got eroded down as of 2013 onwards to th point we are at now.

by saying things need a central leader is ignoring what the consensus mechanism of solving byzantine generals issue was all about..

I do know what is a consensus. But consensus doesn't work. Yes, it does if we are only 10 people, not difficult, but it can't work with everybody included. And it can also work if people are ready for some compromise.
Imagine a consensus in politic, do you really think it's possible? Hell no.

the idea of getting consensus to change a protocol like bitcoin is insane. there's millions of users. there's no way 100% of users would ever agree to a hard fork, except maybe in the narrow case where the protocol is under existential threat from a bug (like if ECDSA were broken).

that's one of the strengths of soft forks. if backed by majority hashpower, they are compatible with the prior consensus. if consensus is never broken, you don't need 100% of users to agree to a fork. everyone can co-exist with backward compatible software.

hell yes.
politics with consensus = democracy
politics without consensus = dictatorship

the only reason politics dictatorship is limited to one vote per 4-5 years is the fact that it takes people having to walk to a polling station per vote, which is lengthy to organise. yet things like america's got talent can achieve voting using technology more often than politics hense why americas got talent does voting every year.

with bitcoin where nodes are always online voting can happen even more rapidly. it just requires devs to not biased throw out certain classes from a vote and instead accept a vote didnt go their way(35%) and instead have them compromise and re try a new proposition, rather than dig deeper with thir proposals and get buddies to social drama other fake options to pander out the opposition and sway/threaten others to accept the dug deeper proposition.

but yea.. consensus can work, but has been bypassed so now consensus(byzantine generals problem) has been sidelined so absurdly that it has now made consensus 'broke' and core show no sign of wanting to go back to a consensus system of satoshis invention as they now control and dictate the rules.
Luke JR is super happy that he gets to do that as and when he likes without opposition now

you been sniffing too much of the echo chamber mantra.

if there was 100% agreement. there would be no soft/hardfork. as everyone would be in agreement. thus they all follow the new rule, thus no fork.. just an upgrade

in a majority consensus(majority but not 100%) the minority wont be hard forked to a different network. they would just be stalled out. same network just not receiving new blocks/data(soft fork).
the minority then decide if they rejoin. or make their own network

in a controversial hardfork where nodes are banned off the network before activation and not due to activation. well thats dictatorship at play.
in a controversial hardfork where code is activated AND THEN nodes are banned/thrown off the network due to rule incompatibility. well if pools were in that group thrown off.. then a new network would occur(hard fork)

as for the whole 'backward compatibility' where older nodes get a stripped out data thats not fit for the full relay layer, and thus forms an underclass of downstream/filtered nodes. yes thats a soft fork as no one is dictatorially thrown off the network. but activating a new ruleset by excluding a certain class from a vote before the ruleset is even activated is not consensus. its a controversial softfork

core pulled of many tricks to get sgwit1x active.. they didnt and make a more community acceptable compromise when they seen they only had 35%. thy decided to get controversial and fake consensus

at what point would there ever be 100% agreement on a change? how would you ever be able to measure that? you're trying to confuse things with loaded and political terms. please try and stick to discussing what nodes are actually doing.

let's take segwit as an example.

by running my legacy node in 2017, i opted into to the consensus---i agreed to the current set of consensus rules. when segwit happened, my legacy node retained consensus with all segwit nodes. there was no chain split. therefore, segwit never violated the consensus that i agreed to. that consensus still exists today and i am still opted into it.

with a hard fork, that consensus would be broken by definition. hard forked nodes would be ignored by my legacy node because the two disagree about what the consensus rules are.


your position on "downstream/filtered nodes" obviously disagrees with the design as satoshi wrote it:

1. yes never 100%. but i was addressing your comment about 100%.. just to correct you that if in YOUR scenario of 100% that there would be no fork. but instead just an united upgrade.
i then went on, passed your limited scope.. and i digressed to show the other parameters of majority(under 100%) and then controversial(less than majority).. it was not me that was highlighting just a 100% agreement. that was you.. like i said i went and explained the multiple levels of what happens when less and less agree and i also described how things play are when nodes are thrown out before consensus(to fake a vote)
...
but in short segwit only got 35% in spring 2017 and so instead of going back to the drawing board with a new option of a varient feature. they doubled down and really pushed for their segwit1x controversially

2. what you dont realise is that downstream/filtered nodes are not just skipping transaction full verification and just saying they pass a minimal test.. these nodes are actually being handed stripped data. which if they were part of the relay layer, the main relay layer nodes would reject the blocks. so its not true compatibility. its just fake compatibility t keep an underclass online but without voting rights (you might want to look into it.. ) the block data 'compatible' nodes get is not the same data full nodes get.
presuming 'compatible nodes' are true full relay nodes and have same vote rights is a flaw in your understanding of the relay network.

3. also before the segwit new ruleset even activated there was a controversial biased fork. some devs called it a bilateral split, amungst many names, but the devs do not deny that a controversial non consensus hardfork occured to push opposition off the network to then get a faked approval vote to get segwit1x activated.
there was no "honest consensus" / "honest node" event around how segwit1x got activated.

some people really need to do some research.. or atleast before trying to deny events happen. atleast speak to devs and realise devs do not need to be defended by lying and saying events didnt happen if said devs are happy to admit their own actions/involvement.
i see no reason for you to pretend things didnt happen. as it defends no one. and also blockdata which is immutible can prove you wrong, let alone quotes from devs themselves. so i wonder what are your motives for continuing the echo chamber of mythical nonsense that a certain group of of people want to continue pushing...

... as the only motive for such i can see is that certain echo chamber group. do NOT care for bitcoin. but only care for keeping bitcoin stifled to then promote another network(LN) where the echo chamber can only hope to become factory/watchtower nodes to be greedy income earnrs.. which if you play out scenario's of LN the echo chamber would soon learn they they wont get to be the hubs of get rich quick. as it will end up being the custodial services of the DCG portfolio that will be the big income earners.. all at the expense of making peer-to-peer self control a thing of the past, while the aim is to push the community into counterparty controlled, banking system which is not community/blockchain confirmed/validated. but instead co-custodian managed and manipulatable. thus killing off the whole point of bitcoin by making bitcoin too expensive and also too small utility to be useful

Let's admit that decentralization is quite harder and complicated. There's always pros and cons about centralized and decentralized. We're just used of centralization in our society. Maybe in the future and if the public adopts decentalized system, we'll get use of it too. There's always a room for improvement though.

Although the establishment of a system based on decentralization is more difficult, there are many benefits to users. Therefore, I believe that an effective campain has been carried out in order to neutralize or discredit our decentralized system. But I think all of this will fail and people will turn to decentralized systems for their own benefit.