Bitcoin Forum

I was reading the book blockchain wars and ran across this sentence. “ Bitcoin is decentralized enough to never be broken or sued but does not have the perfect decentralization that would degrade system design qualities.” I read it three times and don’t understand the second part of the sentence. Can someone explain it in a different way? I think that there is God, and then Bitcoin. But this passage might make me wrong. Lol

there is no company that owns bitcoin...
.. but there is a central hub of developers(core) that have a hierarchy of code control of the protocol.. and they do not like random(decentralised) people having idea's that differ from theirs. they treat anyone that has idea's to grow bitcoin that do not align to their plan as outsiders and to treat all attempts to add bitcoin scaling as a threat/challenge to the hub group of devs. and to try to force the outsider into making an alt rather than integrate the scaling into bitcoin

Yeah I agree with frankly that it could be a grievance to the scalability problems, the fairly slow network, or the lack of features (such as smart contract resemblance).

(smart contracts being a feature may not be something I directly agree with being implemented without its own chain - sandbox - but the author might)

Bitcoin is decentralized but a group of developers takes the decision about the changes in the code. These changes are called BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals), and there are 3 types of BIPs:

Standards Track BIPs - Changes to the network protocol, block or transaction validation, or anything affecting interoperability.
Informational BIPs - Design issues, general guidelines. This type of BIP is NOT for proposing new features and do not represent community consensus
Process BIPs - Describes or proposes a change in the process. Similar to Standards BIPs but apply outside the Bitcoin protocol.

And this is why its decentralization can't degrade or destroy the design qualities as the book mention.

If you want to learn more about this, I leave the wiki link here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

Or put another way, some people have ideas which are incompatible.  They believe their ideas are good, but are unable to find support within the community to implement these ideas.  This is often because their ideas are, in fact, misguided.  Developers have a responsibility to ensure changes don't adversely impact the security and stability of the network.  You could keep taking that rejection personally, playing the victim and whining about it at every opportunity (and you probably will).  Or, you could take a pause.  Seriously reevaluate your ideas and look at them objectively.  Consider whether these ideas would be deemed acceptable by a majority of network participants.  Is your proposal something that everyone would want, or just something you want?  Would your ideas (intentionally or unintentionally) coerce others to carry an additional burden of resource cost in order to make your idea work?  Does the concept stand up to to game-theory, or could it potentially be exploited?  Does it have any potential repercussions that could in any way undermine, weaken or threaten the protocol?  

Chances are, you just haven't thought it through to conclusion.  You can't blame devs for that (except for the part where you keep doing exactly that...).

This is definitely not how it is. The Bitcoin Core developers are no close to dictators, which is what you make it sound like. If someone has an idea, they're free and welcomed to propose it. If there's consensus found on the idea, the developers will start implementing it.

And a developer has no power over me. If they want to enforce their idea by implementing it themselves without further discussion, I'll simply deny to run their software. Simple as that.

You're the only person who sees "outsiders" and "alts". I only see people who've understood there's no further future for scaling on-chain, and try to accomplish it off-chain. One advantage of SegWit was to increase transaction capacity per block, but it was never intended to completely solve scaling.

If you have an idea on how to solve scaling, feel free to say it. But, to catch up with you, changing the block size makes no difference to scaling.

blackhatcoiner.. YOU and your buddies are the idiots that think if someone has an idea they should fork and start a new network and see who joins.

you forget the emphasis that the core devs DECIDE what code gets ACK'd into core
only certain dev cores get to ack and commit the code to a RC

you forget the emphasis that the core devs DECIDE that any other large full node client that is not core should get REKT and treated as an alt/competitor and be forked

a user cant just add its own idea into cores github and have it turned into a RC, where it gets released as a new 0.23.x variant where the community then download or not download depending if they want the feature or not.

there is no multiple versions of with different idea's where people choose which version to run which then get activated once a majority of version 0.23.Y is being used.

there actually is a hierarchy of control of how things get voted in as accepted to core. and these moderators of the levels are well known. and only one version is released at a time and that versions just gets blindly downloaded as an update rather than a choice of options....

the community do not get to decide different features side by side. its now more or a single brand that just gets updated. and instead of a choice. its more of a waiting game or a forced to update that decides WHEN something activates. as there is no alternative to just say no to

do you even remember why they called it CORE. to be the central repository of protocol rules.

the core devs do not like competing full nodes. they even admit that they feel just having a competing full node puts extra work on THEM as it means them as arbitrators of the protocol then are forced to have to review other brands code.

they think they are the managers/authority of the protocol.

so heres a plan..
stop social drama protecting human influencers that you admire. and instead think about the code and protocol the random real community of users are reliant on.
think about the and stop trying to protect the devs.
devs should come and go. so you should not be caring about trying to keep devs in power by your loyalism to humans more than the loyalist to the protocol that needs to grow and evolve

oh and maybe do some research on history of all the REKT campaigns and the evolution of CORE from bitcoin-qt, and just do that research without the social group loyalist hat on

...
and while your at it.. do realise the devs cries about how bitcoin scaling cant work.. is their agenda.. they lie..
for instance ethereum is half the age but the blocksize is more than double but they are not crying.. why?. because we are not in 1999 where people are on dialup and where hard drives are small
core devs play the lies of it being 1999 where scaling bitcoin cant work becasue hardware cant cope.. but reality of real world examples show that not to be the case..

and i am not talking just about blocksize.. im talking about many other features core devs' decline.. like a fee formulae.(yes it can be implemented after all their own crappy math cludge of treating legacy vs segwit fee's differently, which has proven to work) so it is possible to put a fee formula that actually benefits users. but their politics of their agenda doesnt want that.

other things like limiting sig-ops per tx and such so that people cant bloat up block with just a few tx's so that more people can add more tx's per block.. that got declined because its against the core agenda

Just a parenthesis; me and "my buddies" form the overwhelming majority.

This is not what I think, nor what I said.

But, you decide to run their software. Just having the upgraded client is pointless if you don't use it. You, therefore, matter. You action has a consequence. If the developers make a change you disapprove of, they have no power whatsoever. In the same way the miners don't get to dictate you what are the protocol rules, just because they have a certain percentage of the hashrate.

The people you hate outnumber you. Stop thinking of how you can make us think different and realize that you are the problem.

you dont. there is like 12 main "buddies" in your little fan club(cough community)..
there are thousands of topics from thousands of people wanting bitcoin scaling. and only a few dozen topics of your fan agenda of offramping people to altnets as the solution. where its the same dozen people defending altnets as the "solution"

your buddies are the fans of core devs. but that does not make you the majority of the community of all users.
you are the majority of the small group of core dev loyalist fanclub.. thats the difference

heck even your mindset that you think you 12 are the majority is more admission and proof of the hierarchy you love so much. thinking your better then the rest due to ass-kissory of a small central group that think they are the authority.

so yea. it was a laugh seeing you prove my point

your "community" consists of core devs and their loyal fan club
you denie that users and random decentralised people are the real "community"

now go do a topic count on how many people ask and talk about BITCOIN scaling and how many are involved in your altnet solution of keeping bitcoin slim and stagnant, to offramp people away from bitcoin ant into your favoured altnets


learn the size of the actual wider bitcoin community and not just your small version of the community you think is the community

oh and one last funny

i can find more examples. but you get the point
screw it i know your going to be belligerent and dare me.. so heres just another of many posts that reveal how you dont want anyone apart from core devs making the decisions, and prefer everyone else to make a new altcoin/altnet


YOU are a altnet admirer and majority user.
i use the bitcoin network and want the bitcoin network to grow.. but you think you are the bitcoiner and i am the competing altnet admirer..

try to learn the roles are the opposite to what you think.. YOU are the small "community" that want to aspire to grow altnets, by stifling bitcoin design and functionality to promote your altnet

..
i can name your "community majority" off by heart
i know you cant name the ACTUAL bitcoin community majority of thousands/millions of users that want bitcoin network scaling off by heart (i know your tempted to waste hours trawling through thousands of topics to copy and paste name just to pretend you have good memory, pretending you didnt trawl them all and instead just remembered them).. but by posting so many names you are proving my point..  the point is the real community is wider than your fan club

I think it is simply rephrasing the first statement. in the first statement " Bitcoin is decentralized enough to never be broken or sued" is clear enough to state that bitcoin is beyond the centralized monetary system and in the second statement "but does not have the perfect decentralization that would degrade system design qualities.” which tells us that despite Bitcoin not having a central authority the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is strong enough to resist been broken or sued

well actually. scam artist CSW did sue the core devs and some of the main website owners that host bitcoin stuff like the white paper

it didnt affect the bitcoin protocol and the real wide community care about.. but it did affect and scare the small clubhouse that certain people are loyal too.

It depends all on the author's understanding of the actual concept. Saying it's decentralized and not enough doesn't make sense.
Either it is, or not. I would say, Bitcoin is decentralized and does not have to be perfect as it's unique like every human on this planet.
About system design qualities, I don't see any attack on Bitcoin as of now and the other chains have been exploited worth millions in the past years.

the data (blockdata) is decentralised over hundreds of thousands of nodes..
the rules, are bug checked and fixed and changed by only a small group of devs..  and they hate decentralised people outside their group entering their group and having an independent mindset

Real world examples show that 65% of ethereum nodes already run in the cloud, so much about decentralization. Their node count is also much lower than Bitcoins. You can’t criticise something, then bring on another example and just ignore it’s effects, and then accuse people of lying. Scalability won’t be fixed by what sounds cool on paper.

https://ethernodes.org/network-types

there are many many ways to aid bitcoin scaling on the bitcoin network. its not just about blocksize.. my point was that the altnet loyalists that think they are majority of the community and favour devs that only want to sniffle bitcoin evolution, or add things if it favours offramping to altnets .. is by them trying to portray that those that want bitcoin scaling only want massive blocksize growth ASAP as their counter argument to cry that bitcoin shouldnt evolve or those wanting scaling should leave the real bitcoin community and start their own altcoin.

there are many things that can evolve bitcoins network. the fee's, the sigops. the bloat per TX. also even without exceeding the now deemed safe 4mb(weight) they can remove lot of cludgy code and allow more transactions without exceeding that 4mb weight.

but its not technology that hinders the evolution, its the politics..

main point being for about 7 years now. there has been 1 defacto client everyone FOLLOWS. which has for the same number of years had one defacto maintainer that has had the github privileges to accept and finalise a Release Candidate which has then got a few key holding members that show signed messages that they have reviewed and accepted the code as clean which everyone FOLLOWS and trusts..
that same top hierarchy of people are the defacto main devs and dev helpers that have coded in the features THEY prefer to see

Politics will always be involved no matter what, but was there really cases where a really beneficial proposal was made that went trough the process and then got rejected for no reason? I think from these contrarian views in discussions like now, it actually shows that we had hit a good middle ground. When change is really necessary there will be consensus, im sure, because then game theory kicks in.

But this isn’t set in stone forever, this privilege can be lost quickly if they do iffy things. We as a network can react to things when necessary, this is not a dictatorship.

I know your god-complex doesn't allow you to recognise the fact that you've never proposed an idea that would constitute an evolution, but trust us when we tell you your ideas are very much a step in the wrong direction.  You think you're here to save us, lecturing from up on your goddamn high-horse, but as I've said before, you're just a windbag with nothing to offer.  Stop acting like you know best.  You know jack-shit.  

It's not a conspiracy to "hold Bitcoin back", you're just a dumbass who doesn't understand anything and would completely annihilate the protocol if somehow given the means and opportunity to "fix it".  Bitcoin works exactly how it's supposed to.  You don't know how to improve it.  You only know how to break it.  Please STFU.  For once in your life, listen to reason and don't keep waffling on like the ignorant gasbag you are.

doomad
i have no god complex. there are litteraly thousands of people that want bitcoin to evolve(not altnet solutions)
i am not alone.. i am not above others..  i am just the ones that you get triggered by because i have done my research and can show stats and code to back it all up. and you hate it

im informing people using stats and code.. YOU are crying and getting angry and throwing insults and telling people for fork off F$$k off and STFU.. notice the difference

anyway you are one of the typical 12 fans of altnets i was talking about..
where YOU think you have the authority(god complex) to tell people to fork off and go away and shut up when they dont tow the line and kiss your ass

no surprise you would turn up.. did blackhatcoiner contact you and ask you to back him up.. sounds about normal for every topic that you lot happen to try defending your "community"(offramp to altnet agenda group)
ill just continue to call you fangirls.. it stands for
"Form Another Network, Grab Idiots Reserved Locked Sats"
well it doesnt stand for that but it does explain the scheme you want to play for profit, which explains your motives of really trying to push people to stop using bitcoin in preference to your favoured altnet

anyways.. glad your admitting your influencer devs are holding bitcoin back.. one step forward by you admitting such
ill come to the silly things they are holding back that are not needing to be held back below.. ill mark it with a ** so you know



and if there was a bit of bad nefarious code in say version 24. where majority updated and activated some timebomb bug.. .. where are they going to get a version 25 from?
who would you trust to code version 25?
 where is the alternative dev group to diversify and decentralise the options of what node software to run to protect the network (and no im not talking about lite wallets)

anyways lets give the history lesson of the politics at play

the 2016-17 segwit saga...
they proposed a thing that would offer fee discounts...
people thought great legacy addresses finally getting fee's below a couple pennies..
.. nope. instead the game was to not give discounts. but to math cludge the code whereby new formats people had to move funds into paid normal rates and legacy was to be treated as 4x more expensive
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/fees-usd-per-transaction.png?timespan=all&h=600&w=1200
check out the flat line and then in the middle the 2017 event. see how the transaction prices then are not flat line cheap... ask yourself why

also they said they solved malleability. again legacy formats were not solved. again new format people had to move funds into would benefit. but its was not solving malleability it was getting people to have to migrate to malleability free formats.(theres a difference)

these new formats did not offer any transaction count increases to blocks.
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
if you look the transaction count has been stagnant below the 2500 for the last 5 years

yet they did want to allow more blockspace to use for cludgy scripts(witness/signatures) of the new format.. which proves that more blockspace is indeed safe for the network...
BUT they wanted to still lock up and hinder and **not allow legacy transactions to use the extra space. and forced legacy to stay within the 1mb block size.**

.. so it released their agenda code in november 2016.. and the devs got all excited thinking by chiristmas 2016 it would activate because they thought everyone loved it.. ..... um... may 2017 came around not even 50% were liking it.. it wasnt really looking like it was going to activate.
so the politics moved in to change the code and add in some code(MANDATED ACTIVATION) that would force it to activate by ignoring any miner that was not flagging acceptance of it
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip-segwit-flagday#diff-97c3a52bc5fad452d82670a7fd291800bae20c7bc35bb82686c2c0a4ea7b5b98R1829
. this mandated date forced it in..
and so by summer 2017. it activated..

and yet 5 years later. not everyone is using segwit. 5 years later the transaction count has not seen any big increase even though they pretend to offer (but cludge up the offer) of upto 4x more blockspace. (hindered by limiting legacy utility to not be able to use that space.)

and so.. that shows the dictator politics over ruled the actual community that wanted actual changes but didnt get what was truly promised.

which is why after 5 years there are still hundreds/thousands of topic comments from different people asking about scaling bitcoin.

And yet, there's no better proposal than Lightning, as much as you hate it. People might want scaling, but that's the best we have, whether they like it or not. If they want bigger blocks (which doesn't mean they want scaling) they can have them. The fact most don't is because they don't form the majority. The Bitcoin Cash team attempted to make this change and failed miserably.

No, it doesn't. It's consisted of people who run the code. Period. If the Core developers make a change we disapprove of, there's nothing changed.

You avoid the big picture. Topics do not take part in bitcoin. Topics don't tell me what I'm allowed to propagate and what not. Running a bitcoin full node does. And if I don't agree with propagating 10 MB blocks, it doesn't matter what the topics say, nor what you're years whining about; I'll simply reject them.

Oh, and my "altnet" solution, which is neither mine nor of an alternative network, makes things scale. Raising the block size doesn't. The transaction capacity per megabyte remains the same.

I'll skip the fact that you quoted me in a humorous post, no surprise you have zero sense of that either. I have never said that if you have a different, innovative idea, you should fork off. But, raising the block size, which was my reference there, has only proved to make things work weaker, and does contributes nothing to scaling.

If you, though, still want to raise the block size, even if you're part of a small minority, you have the power to do it. But, you're forked off. That's the beauty of decentralized systems I was saying.

It will take me and others a few seconds to go back to version 23 then. What you forget is that the dev group isn’t homogeneous, they have differing views and so on, they’re not sitting in a back room together somewhere. And in the case you mentioned, where some nefarious code would be injected, they would split into different groups and then you have the alternative dev group, it forms naturally.

The probability that this change would go unnoticed is extremely low and that no devs would step up to open a different repository, even lower. There will always be an amount of honest devs that can be relied upon, that’s the beauty of decentralization, because there can be bad actors, but we can just go around them, they will never get control over the majority.

There’s also a big amount of coders, that didn’t work on core yet, so even if someone controls all core devs(which will never happen). There will never be a shortage of honest actors, even in the worst case. The majority will just go to them, because it wouldn’t make sense for them to keep running a broken version. It will never make sense for the majority to run a version that works against them. There’s just no scenario where people couldn’t react to this. That’s what makes decentralization different from centralization.

I’ll research about this, i wasn’t around at that time, so im not qualified to speak on it.

Whatever number of people your vivid imagination leads you to believe you have on your side, it clearly isn't enough.  Learn consensus.



After almost a decade on this forum, I've not once witnessed you use the word "research" in the accepted context.  You don't do research.  You do confirmation bias and conclusion shopping.  You only search for things that reinforce your ridiculous preconceived notions.  All of your "stats" are technobabble nonsense, all of your ridiculous ascii-diagrams are horseshit and you've proven time and again that you're not a coder and deliberately misinterpret the code comments to twist their meaning to suit your hollow arguments.  You borrow arguments from scammers like CSW and then pretend you have the best interests of the network at heart.  You spout totalitarian nonsense about preventing devs from coding what they want and then pretend you care about freedom.  If you don't want people to perceive you as scum, stop acting like scum.

 

Wrong.  In order to inform others, you would first have to be correctly informed yourself.  You are clearly not correctly informed.  You are a source of disinformation.  Either you don't understand the code or you are lying about what the code means.



I'm just pointing out the futility of continuing to use a protocol that you fundamentally disagree with and then whining about how it doesn't work the way you want it to.  I'm happy with the protocol, so it makes sense for me to continue using it.  If it worked the way you wanted it to, where devs aren't free to code what they want, softforks were somehow disallowed and users were coerced to bear a greater resource cost for running a node, I wouldn't stick around to constantly bitch about it.  I'd use some common sense, leave and use something else.  Why do you have no common sense?



I know reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, but I posted in the topic before BlackHatCoiner did.  But keep giving in to your paranoia and conspiracy nonsense.  

It couldn't possibly be the case that multiple individuals have separately arrived at the conclusion you're a raving crackpot.  No, it's clearly an act of collusion.  We're all out to get you because you're such an unrecognized genius and we just can't handle the envy.  Yeah, that must be it.   ::)



Literally never said that.  Devs have a duty of care to protect the network from raving lunatics who think they know what scaling is.  They're doing a fantastic job.

Also, you're holding yourself back.  You still can't bring yourself to answer a few simple questions about freedom and consensus.  See if you and do it this time:


But no, you can't answer those questions.  That would reveal the real truth.  The one you don't want other people to see.  You'll remain in denial about being a totalitarian fascist, because you lack the spinal fortitude to admit your true feelings.

YAWN,.. and none of your insults include any code or details or stats to back up what your opinion concludes.

and by the way in the other topic. it was actually me that started off with the idea of putting in questionaires with yes and no answers for your buddies to answer. so dont go playing that game where you think you are doing something original and trying to suggest your had an inspiring idea to ask questions.. because you wont like the results

i know you want the core devs to develop what THEY want even if it goes against the wider userbases wishes
i know you want the core devs to be allowed to put in madatory activations so they get to force their whims on the network because you think the network belongs to them, because in your mind they are the CORE(center).. but all of that is proof of the small group centralisation of the code control.
where you think everyone else has to make their own alt-side-subnetworks instead and just work on the outside of cores code

i know you pretend your version of OPEN is where the core devs get to control the core and everyone else can have their own layers/branches. but thats not the original definition of BITCOINS open network.

but please do waste time crying.. or better yet just take a look at the far far far many more topics and far more people in those topics wanting to discuss BITCOIN scaling. and then compare that to the small number of you favoured altnet topics with the same dozen names popping up hilariously overselling over promising and under delivering a altnetwork while pretending the altnet you love as being the solution and bitcoin 2.0 everyone wants(they dont).

10%(~400btc) of your altnets entire liquidity capacity(~4000btc)  belongs to one node.
the 4000btc does not represent hundreds of thousands of users.
it just goes to show how small your altnet is when one node has 10% of the liquidity

oh and to get to the crux of your questions
you are wrong. because if there were different rules all over the place. there would be no majority. as there would be for example 10% running a rule that wants W 30% wanting X 25 wanting Y and 35% wanting Z. none of which would total the super majority needed to acivate a change in normal consensus rules

2016-17 proved that when segwit didnt get its activation in 2016-spring 2017.. where by core and its fansclub of altnet supporting solution agenda guys then moved to REKT other options and want them all to f**k off.
and then core had to then mandate and force segwit to activate in summer 2017 due to lack of user voluntary flagging for wanting it, the mandated activation was done in a way that even if users didnt have the nodes and miners to understand, interact and create segwit formats... they had to flag involuntarity to say they wanted it or be thrown off the network..
because even without running the code.. the mining pools were forced to just change not their entire codebase to understand segwit, but just change a version bit in their block to flag that they did not want to be kicked off the network for not supporting it. so they put the required version bit in their block to not get thrown off, and then without running segwit understanding code, they managed to stay on the network but ended up involuntarily getting segwit activated even without having any wallet software that could understand creating segwit addresses and signing transactions at the time
please at least try to review the code and activities that happened. dont play dumb with your "i didnt know, i wasnt interested in that stuff to care" excuses to ignore actual events.. if you want to debate something be prepared. or stay out of the debate if you want to play dumb and not know what actually happened.

You're the only person who feels oppressed that way.

I have, personally, comprehended that developers such as Peter Todd, Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Andrew Chow, Satoshi Nakamoto etc., know more than I do, and therefore some of their actions might make more sense if I take the time to study better, but there's absolutely no way they can enforce their opinion to my client without my permission. If I come to realize I disagree with a change, or just don't like on running Bitcoin with 1 MB blocks, I have the power to fork myself off, and I ought to in that case.

Bitcoin scales. With Lightning. But, besides that, what's the people's want is irrelevant. What matters is the solution. Propose it. If you don't have any, stop whining.

nope there are thousands of people in loads of topics that want bitcoin scaling but cant get it because bitcoin core devs have a different goal/agenda/plan

you only see me because i am the only one of a fw left that still can be bothered to argue with your small little buddie group of fangirls...  you cant easily shut me up when you try to break people down to sheep follow your altnet goals.

just accept it. i am not going to bow down to the "LN is the solution" agenda.
now go play with you little altnet. unless you and your buddies are willing to take some time out of your lives and actually do some proper research outside your pamphlets of centralised advertising of the "solution" you lot are obsessed with

if you think i am the only one.. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE THOUSANDS OF TOPICS BY LOTS OF PEOPLE that want to discuss BITCOIN network evolution..
and i mean bitcoin not your altnet offramp games you and your buddies are kiss assing with the devs that are stifling bitcoin to promote such altnets as solutions

..
and as for your cries when i mention the altnet being yours.
you may not be the birth mother of it. but you love and care and want to protect and defend it, meaning that you certainly adopted it as your own baby.

you dont want bitcoin scaling on the bitcoin network you want people to see bitcoin as being crippled because it then makes your adopted altnet useful..
but the thing is. your lil baby. has some flaws and is not something that will be world changing and welcomed to the wide world. it will stay as a niche.. people want real bitcoin adoption and actual bitcoin scaling.. not to be told that bitcoin cant grow so they should go adopt another network instead

bitcoin can grow if the current foster carers maintaining it, stop trying to cripple it and holding it back, but we all know you like the foster carers of bitcoin holding it back, as it helps to advertise your altnet baby

That's because there isn't code to govern who is or isn't allowed to write code.  You could completely bypass Core's BIP process, write your own client, publish it and allow others to run it.  And you could run it yourself.  No one could stop you.  You could include any features you wanted to "evolve" (LOL) or "scale" (LOL) the protocol.  It's all right there on the internet and you can change whatever you want.  Why don't you?  It's almost as though you recognise the part where:

 a) no one trusts you,
 b) your ideas to "improve" Bitcoin are terrible,
 c) no one believes you to be remotely competent as a developer,
 d) even you can recognise you lack the skills or the understanding to do it correctly.

But you keep talking about these "thousands of people" who supposedly want the same things you want, so surely you should give it a try and see how you get on, right?  But no, you just keep whining about code written by others which you freely choose to run, despite the fact it's never going to change anyone's minds.  Because that's not obnoxious behaviour at all!   ::)



It doesn't matter what I want.  I'm just explaining how it works (for what must be the hundredth time at this point).  Open-source means anyone can code what they want.  If the wider userbase doesn't approve of the code, then they don't need to run it.  That's the only way it can work unless you want Bitcoin to become a closed-source project.  You have been unable to refute that fact since day one of the scaling debate.  Stop pretending otherwise.  You don't have an answer, so you cry "social drama" instead.  

Just admit that you want totalitarian-closed-source-coin which is wholly incompatible with Bitcoin and then maybe you could evolve a little.  

you say there is no code to govern.. and then you mention cores BIP process.. a process which in of itself has a code of governance..
they have their own rules and moderators and guidelines as to what can be proposed, how it should be proposed and their own hierarchy of who can ACK a proposal and who reviews proposals..
they have a multi layered approach to bip
first discuss lightly in their mailing list which is moderated by small group of known names. then
next discuss lightly in their IRC channel which is moderated by small group of known names. then
make a formal BIP and send it to the moderators of the github of bips
next discuss in more detail in IRC, mailing, or as comment on github to flesh out any issues or agenda competition.
and if your lucky enough to not get thrown out.
then you have to wrote the code and try to get it ACKed by the small group of maintainers.

but then.. you know this. and you also know the only option is to avoid core if the proposal is not ass-kissory to their agenda/goals.. and as you and your buddies point out many times. not contribute to core and instead fork off

and before you pretend people can fork the software and promote it on the bitcoin network. you and your buddies have already pointed out you love to do rekt campaigns on anyone that is opposing the core agenda. and you and your buddies in many topics have already show how those proposals not part of the core agenda get thrown off the network.

oh and if you look at the contributors of core.. its not millions of people. its not thousands, its not even hundreds.. the majority of core devs with a decent amount of commits that were ACK(acknowledged and added) is only a few dozen that have remained the elite group for 5-7 years.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
it shows that if you look at the top 100.. the amount of actual decent contributions fizzles down to small amounts in the top 40.

thank you for proving my point. have a nice day.

If the Core developers have an agenda you disapprove of, it wouldn't make sense to run their software. Running Bitcoin Core means you've acknowledged and approve the rules those developers have included to it.

I couldn't care less of convincing a fascist psychopath. The only reason I attend "discussing" with you is to convince those few newbies, who may have the bad luck to read your miserable posts, how obnoxious you are and how wrong your way of perceiving reality is. Loser.

again your only answer. if you disapprove fork off (your saying subtly).. mhm how did i guess you were going to reply with that silly answer.. (but subtly avoiding the verbatim words of 'fork off' and instead trying to say 'stop running their software')

or the real answer is if people want to use the bitcoin network and have full node status. they need to be blindly following core. even if they dont like it..
because running other software and trying to promote bitcoin scaling.evolution without core ACK/consent/approval just ends up in REKT campaigns

of course people can blindly follow cores policy and just be a follower of the rules without trying to propose anything new by creating their own code that blindly follows core policy..

this does not mean they have to then shut up and stay quiet about it.. as well

EG
a vegan hates meat. they can try living in a world avoiding meat. but you are still going to hear them complain about meat. avoiding meat or just accepting and eating meat does not meant they cant complain about how manufactured and processed meat is.
(im a omnivore(mostly carnivore) but even i can see their point of view. shame you cant see other people point of view that doesnt align with your own)

i know you dont want people talking about it but they will. and THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DO.
you hate me the most because im the one that doesnt cower down or run away and hide away from your insults and arguments of defending your "altnet is the bitcoin 2.0 solution" agenda

(oh again by "your" i dont mean YOUR birth baby.. i mean the baby you adopted and care for and defend.. (pre-empting that silly counter argument yet again))

now i just await the other few buddies of your defense fanclub league of fangirl.. oeleo, windfury, rath, loyce and nonce and a few others.. you know.. the usual suspects to come in to give you a hug(merit) and to try their own attempts to cause arguments help you defend your baby

---

to all other readers. sorry about this political social drama game done by certain people that want to defend central core devs rights to code what they like. .. but its these same few idiots that always come in defending the honour and reputation of the fan club leader dev they admire and are loyal to..

they are not loyal to the code security or the decentralised network, they are loyal to humans they deem as their leader and empowered devs of core control.

if they cared about BITCOIN and not dev X or Y. they would not be so angry about my comments

its not new. its the same few people time and time again. its boring but its on repeat. they dont care about the code or how it affects users ability to transact ON BITCOIN because they only care to offramp people to altnets.
their community is not the wide diverse community of milions of people that want to hold actual BTC. their community is the small niche of devs and fans that want altnet offramps. they just think their community is a majority. because its the small group they spend the most time talking to the most and only get to see because thy ignore most people that disagree with them.


they are by arguing and defending so heavily actually proving the point that there is a little boys club of a centralised group in control of what direction bitcoin protocol goes.. and in their mind the only direction they see/want is to offramp people to other networks

Franky, i have nothing against you and no connection to anyone here, and also i didnt use or run anything else than core yet, but lemme give you another perspective, because we should be working together instead of fighting. And you still have a right to your opinion regardless.

Im just coming out of a development project with terrible project management and almost nonexistent communication inside the team and let me tell you, this is terrible for both the devs and the product. Making any changes becomes a nightmare and is nerve wrecking, everyone just implements things without informing others, the architecture changes every few commits, and you constantly gotta try to understand undocumented and changing code and the product becomes half assed as a result. You can’t even time the changes others are making, if there’s no processes in play, you have to rely on parts of code that you don’t even know how they will be implemented or when they’re finished. If this is already a problem in a team of 10, then imagine this on a bigger scale in an open source project. It doesn’t matter how good of a dev you’re, because you can’t take on work of many people alone without going insane.

When i see the processes core uses it actually makes a whole lot of sense, and im sure any dev appreciates this, if they want to deliver the highest quality software possible. Communication and good planning are necessities, not gates. These processes were probably developed out of a necessity and not to keep others out. It actually enables you to make contributions, because good luck contributing to a messy, ever changing, undocumented software that has no contribution processes in play, it kills the fun and motivation in development fast, but also leads to low quality software that can’t scale well. I was just in this hell for a few months and don’t wanna go trough this again.

anyway. lets go back to the other comments that are not the social drama queen defense fanclub


you forget installing 24 means it overwrote the 23.
you forget a thing called backporting. where devs do it alot to back port a later feature to also be included in an earlier version. so if you download 23 again.. you may now also have that new flaw in 23 again..
like i said who are you going to trust.  

its not like you can get something thats not bitcoin core but has all the review and stuff and has all the bells and whistles. (core does not like seeing competing fullnodes on the bitcoin network)

anyways.. lets use a real example. forget the hypothetical v24 bug.. lets use a real one..

take a bug found in 2018 that affected core versions 0.14-0.16.2  (vulnerable between march 2017-upto sept 2018)
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.16.3#denial-of-service-vulnerability

a few seconds you say to go back or upgrade to a vulnerability free version.. hmm..

they created a fix via version 0.16.3 on 18th of september 2018.. (2 months after the last version with the bug(0.16.2)
https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history
and then backported the fix to the older versions as far as 0.14 and released updated version for 0.14 and 0.15 on the 28th of september (10 days after the 0.16 versions fix)

meaning lets say you had version 0.16.0 (february 2017) you were vulnerable. if you tried to get older versions like 0.15.x or 0.14.x you are still vulnerable.. and version 0.12 was not segwit compatible..
so you would have to of waited from february until september to have then been able to download a fresh updated version of 0.14.x-0.15.x-0.16.x that did not have the bug

unless you can tell me another brand/source of a full node that has all the ability to do all network operations and has a facility to make proposals for network feature upgrades............. and that is trusted enough to have not included the bug or found and fixed the bug before core did...

.. see my point. by having a lack of diverse choice meant people had to find out too late their software had a bug and then wait longer to get an update and even longer for a older version update without the bug. because even older versions of core had it too..

..
core have been known on many occasions to not disclose a vulnerability until they have made the fix even if they knew about the bug for many months.
this is because instead of wanting a diverse codebase of different nodes that are on the network they want to be the sole control.supplier of a full node. and so if they admitted earlier there was a bug but didnt have the available versions with a fix to download. it would cause chaos

You can always keep an old unchanged copy somewhere, or run 2 nodes with 2 different versions, but this change would probably noticed before the majority downloaded it.

Now this is a better example and you have a point, im not specifically against the idea of competing implementations, but how do we make sure they run perfectly in sync with each other, this could open different risks in return. The devil lies in the details. But still im not necessarily against it, it just depends on the execution, that i cant evaluate if they’re not here.

It could also mean bugs in both implementations tho, because this is just part of software development. We could argue that it’s more beneficial, to come to a consensus in one implementation and get this one right. It all depends on the implementation in practice and i cant say core didn’t got us trough everything well enough.

Too much segmentation of development can also mean that the projects drift apart, maybe it’s not a bad idea to be forced to go trough the core process, because we can’t forget that it’s also about getting consensus in the community.

Peeps, why you guys keep loosing the leash to this "thing"? This is way off topic! Let him speak alone and engage in something more useful! This is meant to be a constructive comment.

Didn't "we" already answered to the OP? Ignore the rest and move on. I think it's the best to do, mainly in this thread that is supposedly not meant to debunk this guy over and over again!

here was the idea..
of true decentralised consensus..(before core even existed)
instead of everyone downloading one version from one location.. and accepting that as the defacto version and all other versions treated as competition..
people had versions using different languages, from different brands that were not "competing" but cooperating.
thats the point of bitcoin decentralisation and the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. cooperation not competition..(well before 2015 that was the point)


unlike the 2015-2022 days.. the 2009-2014 days were actually sharing idea's.. there was no "that proposal is ours, dont steal it dont put it into your software its ours, you dont didnt even put our brand into the copyright, you script kiddie thieves" . instead people could copy idea's and add features into their brands. and that was the point.
cooperation not competition..

when there was a feature people wanted. people would put them into their favoured brands and the proposer was happy to see it in other brands.. and if the all diverse favoured brands all got majority agreement to flag for the activation then and only then did it upgrade.. until that point no change happens before majority.. . thus no issue with what you pretend is a problem
this did not activate simply by having competing brands.. things only activated where there was cooperating brands.
so there was no 'out od sync' problems

bitcoin in 2009-2014 had the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. now in 2015+ the core prefer to be the only general to avoid having to share control with other generals..

by this i mean,  its like satoshi had his own codebase he tweaked but followed the rules. hal had his codebase he tweaked but followed the rules.. neither hal or satoshi dictated or mandated a change.. or forced each other to obey by mandate..

they had proposals for new features and published the proposals, when both hal and satoshi and others put them into their own codebases and other did too they all found they had the majority to activate the new feature.. and it activated

read alot of the old posts on this forum before 2011 where people were randomly putting code into the forum and everyone then putting it into their own codebases without having to wait for a release candidate that included it from a central repo..

forget thinking of competition and think of cooperation.. forget central repo. think diverse codebases all enjoying each others involvement and cooperation and helping each other out

the issue is core(2015+) wanted to change many rules quick without wanting to be subject to a community vote,,  and didnt like having to persuade other clients brands so wanted to remove the brands out of the network so that the activations happened on core terms, with cores time frame (the main devs were employed and had a contractual timeframe deadline that would award them a large amount of bitcoin if they got it activated by the deadline.)

what core should do is instead of making proposals based on political.business contracts behind the scenes that make them money for implementing.. they should instead make proposals the actual main wide diverse community want and would be happy to see.
emphasis make proposals for their feature that the wider community wanted where the wider community would have accepted.. thus not need to force them off the network.. or madatorily scare them into accepting even without having the ful code base to validate the feature..
but core only cared about features needed by their back-end business sponsors contractual deals from certain corporate groups (blockstream and the barry silbert group) (the ones that made the liquid sidechain and LN that required segwit to allow liquid and LN to actually semi function better. (but still flawed, so i still laugh)

anyways back to the point
EG when they promoted their first version of segwit in 2016(needed for LN, and other pegged sidechains like liquid)
not even 50% of the actual bitcoin community wanted it even 7 months later (~may 2017) and the other brands seen no bitcoin large benefit, and just a benefit to the offramp to altnet groups altnets

however their spring 2017 variant was a more acceptable 2mb base block 4mb weight block proposal. this was a step forward majority was willing to accept...(but also was the mandated part.. to really push the activation)
that helped trigger more adoption of segwit but core and the silbert group re-negged on that promise on august 2nd by not fulfilling the 2mb base limit for legacy after august 1st because by august 1st 2017 core became the defacto client left on the network and didnt need to compromise to the second version of segwit that got them a little more acceptance.. (it was a bait and switch along side the mandatory game)

..
anyways..
the whole
'let core devs do whatever they want.. dont let anyone tell core what they cant do' mindset you have seen a few fangirls above mention a few times.. is not consensus...

true consensus is let anyone propose something and actually get them to help have the other brands want it too by having a feature that the wider community actually want. by offering it out willingly to all brands to implement

heres one idea of something acceptable that could have avoided all the 2016-167 controversy..
if there was a version of segwit proposed in 2016 that was a very very simple few features like:
new tx format called segwit, which had malleability fix for those that want it, and the locks and off ramp ability core wanted
the blocksize being 4mb for all to use. including legacy.(core acknowledged 4mb was network safe(no base block limit))
less sigops per transaction to avoid just a few bloated tx filling a block.

this would have actually been what core dev deem as technically possible (they all agree 4mb weight is of no harm) which means more tx per block not just due to full utility of the 4mb. but also the less sigops means less chance of single bloaty TX taking too much space.
a fee thats lower. (instead of the cludgy legacy x4 cludge that core actually proposed.. which caused legacy to get more expensive)

this would have got wide acceptance and would have still got segwit adoption.. all without having to throw large amount of unsupportive nodes off the network via mandated rejections of pools and nodes. without having to cludge up the code with 2 blocksize rules. without 2 cludgy fee rules.

..
there is absolutely no technical reason in 2022 to have the 1mb base limit still inplace hindering legacy transaction utility via the "weight" cludge
if core removed all the cludgy x4 math of weight and legacy fee. and just had a straight base 4mb blocksize along with less sigops per tx it would fix alot of things and give alot more utility without breaking anything.

there are alot more things besides all this that could be implemented to help improve bitcoin scaling too.
such as the issue with 'spam' transactions that spend every block, bloating up the block with transactions that in real world go no where but just paying the sender back just for shits and giggles.. every block. thus taking up space for no reason..

this can be solved easily by a fee mechanism that makes a transaction not pay for just its size. but also its age. EG if a transaction is spending a utxo thats only a few confirms deep. they pay higher than a utxo that is hundred+ confirms deep. EG if your spending every 10-20 minutes you could pay alot more then those that pay one or twice a day.. and alot more than that those that pay once a month.
this would make it extremely costly personally for the spammers
and with this idea.. it would mean not everyones competing fees would rise.. and it would be more personal fee based on personal needs of size and time since last spend.
unlike the current game of everyones fee's go up due to spammers because currently. everyone is "competing" due to a lack of a fee mechanism and so when spammers fill blocks everyone else has to compete and pay more to get noticed.. which is a bad way to work currently

by charging just the spammers more . it makes spammers not spam as much meaning more chance for everyone else to get their transaction seen without having to compete by fee rise races.


if there is no other candidate at an election.. there is no election. .. its just a one party government in power day after day..