Bitcoin Forum

 In the wake of last month’s fork, the elites in the Bitcoin community effectively changed the rules in a matter of hours. In principle, there’s no reason those same elites couldn’t make other changes to the Bitcoin protocol.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/04/07/four-reasons-bitcoin-is-worth-studying/


Edit:


I think the author is a tool.   I just felt everyone should know the FUD being spread.

This is the only reason I posted it.

I met Gavin in NYC bitcoin conference .  At the time I owned flexcoin.  I believe he's a good guy.

Do you write for the guardian in the UK? I know an author who writes baseless tripe you'd like.

If you're referring to Heidi Moore, yeah, my god... She's horrible. I got into a lengthy twitter fight with her over her last article.


And OP, regarding your post, the way the fork was resolved indicates bitcoin's STRENGTH, not weakness. The community came together and rapidly resolved a technical issue. Their incentives were beautifully aligned to act together in the interest's of bitcoin as a whole. And go read the IRC logs; Gavin was one voice among many. I, for one, am more bullish on the long-term future of bitcoin after the fork.

There is a reason. Us the users would reject the changes and refuse to use the new protocol. Just don't update to that client?
Unless they were planning it all along and made the changes so small we wouldn't notice.

Look, someone who know nothing about bitcoin wrote an article about bitcoin. And failed, hard.

Timothy Lee actually wrote a decent article.

it's the OP that has failed hard.

If those same elites made changes to the Bitcoin protocol, you have every option to not use those changes (which would undoubtedly create a hard-fork.)  Their only option is to make these changes, without ever telling you about them, and somehow keeping our current BTC devs quiet (either through unlawful imprisonment or lots of money, the latter of which may not work.)

IF the elites attempted to force a "tax-enabling" client, just don't use it.  You will be a-okay.

I think the big difference between the "bitcoin elites" and the existing financial system elites is the "bitcoin elites" are working really hard to distribute our power.

We're getting there, but it will take time. I really hope in a year or two there will be at least three or four different bitcoin implementations all producing blocks, validating transactions, etc. And in ten years there will be a dozen or more.

That is a natural progression; I was around when NCSA Mosaic was the one web browser and the NCSA server was the only web server, and there have been a couple cycles of certain browsers / web servers becoming dominant and then fading. I expect to see a similar evolution for Bitcoin infrastructure software.

I think the author is a tool.   I just felt everyone should know the FUD being spread.

This is the only reason I posted it.

I met Gavin in NYC bitcoin conference .  At the time I owned flexcoin.  I believe he's a good guy.

first off, the author didn't title this thread; you did.  who's the tool?

Clearly you are.   Who the fuck do you think the "bitcoin elite is". When it comes to the overall rules are??   You think the author was referring to anyone else?

A kingdom with a benevolent monarch is well off. But there's no guarantee the next monarch will be as benevolent as Gavin.  :P

But yes, I surely do hope Bitcoin will remain or improve decentralization. Would also somewhat prove wrong anti-capitalists and Marxists who insist that every system based on markets and money always ends up in hierarchy and centralization of power.

"Bitcoin elites" have created something that has actually engendered hope and motivation in many people. Being one of the older gents on this board, I can't recall the Credit Elites ever engendering hope in anyone during my lifetime.

Bitcoin elites, +1.

Lee said "elites" as in plural.  he wasn't referring to an individual.  you are.

plus, the author has trouble defining who the elites actually are.  in his article he references one of his own earlier articles that claimed that the "miners" were the elite in that they could collude to perform a 51% attack.  which is it?

and furthermore, you seem to agree with the premise to begin with that there is a bunch of "elites" (plural) that do control Bitcoin.  i think you are wrong.

"A core part of Bitcoin’s appeal is that it’s not under anyone’s control. Supposedly, nobody has the authority to change the Bitcoin money supply, cancel or reverse transactions, or otherwise change the attributes of the protocol.

But in practice that’s not really true.

In the wake of last month’s fork, the elites in the Bitcoin community effectively changed the rules in a matter of hours. In principle, there’s no reason those same elites couldn’t make other changes to the Bitcoin protocol.

There’s a direct parallel here to issues of political legitimacy in a nation state. In principle, most democratic nations have constitutions that bind the behavior of government officials. In practice, a cabal of elites can and regularly do change those rules with minimal input from the rank and file. Yet the discretion of elites is not unlimited."

source: Forbes

do you mean alt chains?

what is flexcoin? premined & extinct?  ;)

no, he means like BitcoinJ and maybe Armory.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168944.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168944.0)

but, seriously: FUD or no FUD.

the question of fees is highly political. my poll indicates that the majority of users reject the current fee level.
what if s.o. had changed the fees in ver. 0.81 ? or changed it back?

the article points to a valid question. :-\

Nope, bitcoinj is a light node and armory is an addon to bitcoin-qt. I believe Gavin is talking about 3rd-party full node implementations, of which the only one that is actively maintained at this time (but has very little userbase) is Ufasoft Coin.

The author is not a tool.  He's a smart writer who made decent arguments.

Stop calling anything negative written about Bitcoin "FUD".  For Bitcoin to succeed, it needs to be criticized so that legitimate weaknesses can be improved upon. 

Gavin may be a good guy, but Bitcoin needs to be able to survive even if Gavin was a bad guy.  That's the whole point of Bitcoin.

Hear, hear!

Gavin--First, thanks for your and the other devs' work.  The rest of the world and I get the product of your labor for free.  That's pretty cool.

Second--if you really want to have multiple, interoperable implementations, I think you have to get past the "source code is the protocol documentation" idea.

I understand the argument that additional implementations must mirror bitcoind behavior exactly, including bugs, or else risk block chain splits that could have a large financial impact.  However, source-code-as-documentation does not work well as a guide to other implementers.  It fails to distinguish between behavior that is essential and behavior that is contingent and arbitrary (just happened to be that way, could be otherwise.)

Developers writing additional implementations are unable to objectively verify that what they have done is proper, without some standard from which they can create unit and overall feature tests.

Yes, I'm familiar with what exists now on the wiki and elsewhere.  It is useful as a learning tool, and others have written bitcoin-related functionality based on it.  But documentation written by "reverse engineering" the thinking of developers based on source code suffers from the same problems.

Of course, it is possible to get into documentation paralysis, where so much time is spent nailing down details that actual development stalls.  However, this can be solved in an incremental and iterative way rather than an all-at-once, serial fashion.  I think merely having the sanction of the bitcoind dev team and a vision that someday the bitcoind code will follow the spec, not the other way around, would motivate a lot of people to participate.

This isn't a complaint, per se--you guys are doing the work and giving it away, and you are of course free to do whatever you wish.  Consider this a polite request to reconsider your team's attitude toward formalizing the protocol using something beside the source code itself.

Regards,

A very happy bitcoind user and fellow full-time open source developer.

What is bitproof?

Actually I found this article a good read. One of the first that offered some clear backgrounds to their readers without either being fanboy or high-horse bubble critic.

I've read trought IRC while the fork happen.. My conclusion : This team of developper / mining pool operator are very intelligent, cooperative, and toughfull people.  To date, I trust each of them to do their best for Bitcoin !  They handle this situation like pros, and have been diligent and civil !   Congratulations !

OP: very misleading title of this thread, you should be ashamed of yourself

Will

After the recent fork incident, my trust of the core dev's decision making ability increased a lot

What a load of crap.  As far as I see there was no change to the protocol or 'rules'.  What the so-called 'elites' did was rally the community to take actions that were in the best interests of the Bitcoin network (which was never in terrible danger anyway.)  Exactly what effective and decent leadership should be doing, and no mean feat in Bitcoin-land given the makeup and given that some of the effected risked a personal loss by doing the right thing.

I, for one, am appreciating the exceptional efforts and effectiveness of all of the core dev and management members while it is possible to managed the solution at all.  Even the ones who I dis-agree significantly with on the trajectory of the Bitcoin (which, as far as I can tell, includes most of them at this time.)

I agree there were no protocol changes just a recommendation to collaborate for a few hours on the earlier client to enable a fork to rejoin the chain. Now most are updating and handling larger blocks and gavins position as lead developer co-ordinating the action is justified. I feel this shows a strength in the team and therefore btc. I do not think gavin should be singled out here he did nothing unilaterally. this is still beta and this is one more step on the way. I support the action advised and taken by the community for the benefit of all. reg.        

Agreed, and add the pool operators, while we're at it.