The Bitcoin Community & Decentralization

[mobnepal]

OpenBazaar which is supposed to be a decentralized marketplace is almost used by no one compared to the bitcoin userbase and this is valid for Bitsquare.io as well.

I don't have idea regarding openbazaar but i have once tried bitsquare platform but couldn't find any exchange deal listed that i am comfortable with and also i think it will need lot more time for users to understand how those decentralized marketplaces work. May be we need more time to see people actually using decentralized marketplace. Also lots of improvements needed in those decentralized marketplace to be able to compete with well known centralized marketplaces.

[DooMAD]

The lack of knowledge is a very dangerous thing as these people are exactly the group of people that are easy targets for poisonous initiatives planning to coup Bitcoin as was the plan of various alternatives such as XT, Unlimited, classic, etc. But then again, why would these people care as they are here only for profits...

Because what do you think will happen if the Unlimited or Classic guys get their way? The price will probably drop a lot, since the whole consensus mechanism will be questioned, and Bitcoin's stability will be shaken.

People now believe that Bitcoin is decentralized, but if they get their way, that will prove that it isn't and in fact it can be less trusted than a central bank coin, because atleast a central bank is somewhat transparent, while these people are not.

Like most alt developers are anonymous, how can you trust these people?

If you're both so fond of decentralisation, why do you campaign so vociferously for centralised development?  Again, this seems to be another example of people confusing "consensus" with "herd mentality".  What you've completely failed to comprehend is that by ostracizing other developers and also the users who run their code, you're the one questioning the consensus mechanism.  In reality, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with if you force everyone to agree via coercion anyway.  Bitcoin was not designed to enforce the status quo.  If you believe it was, I'm afraid you have been grossly misinformed.

Simple question, which scenario sounds more decentralised?

a)  A single development team produce code which all users run without an alternative and there's no point whatsoever even having a consensus mechanism to begin with.

b)  Multiple development teams provide several possibilities for the project's direction and those securing the network determine which code should govern the network using consensus.

_{Hint:  it's definitely not a)}


The lack of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, indeed, but the lack of wisdom is even worse.  

We've got a beautiful thing going here, so I don't understand why people want to ruin it by pushing a closed, restrictive mindset on an open and permissionless system.  Recognise and appreciate what you've got, ingrates.

[RealBitcoin]

If you're both so fond of decentralisation, why do you campaign so vociferously for centralised development?  Again, this seems to be another example of people confusing "consensus" with "herd mentality".  What you've completely failed to comprehend is that by ostracizing other developers and also the users who run their code, you're the one questioning the consensus mechanism.  In reality, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with if you force everyone to agree via coercion anyway.  Bitcoin was not designed to enforce the status quo.  If you believe it was, I'm afraid you have been grossly misinformed.

Simple question, which scenario sounds more decentralised?

a)  A single development team produce code which all users run without an alternative and there's no point whatsoever even having a consensus mechanism to begin with.

b)  Multiple development teams provide several possibilities for the project's direction and those securing the network determine which code should govern the network using consensus.

_{Hint:  it's definitely not a)}


The lack of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, indeed, but the lack of wisdom is even worse.  

We've got a beautiful thing going here, so I don't understand why people want to ruin it by pushing a closed, restrictive mindset on an open and permissionless system.  Recognise and appreciate what you've got, ingrates.

Because I dont think that Classic and Unlimited has the best interests of Bitcoin as a goal. I think they are selfish and want to use bitcoin as a lab rat to prove their own ideas, even at the expense of risking 15 billion of other people's money.

So far the Core team is the most respected, and although the repo is closed, everyone has commit access, and then experts can choose what will be implemented or not.

The code adding forum is open, it's just that the final word rests in the hands of experts, which it should be.

[jacafbiz]

I can tell you that people care about decentralization but the services offered by discentralised exchanges and co cannot be compared to the centralised ones, with time things should improve.

[DooMAD]

If you're both so fond of decentralisation, why do you campaign so vociferously for centralised development?  Again, this seems to be another example of people confusing "consensus" with "herd mentality".  What you've completely failed to comprehend is that by ostracizing other developers and also the users who run their code, you're the one questioning the consensus mechanism.  In reality, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with if you force everyone to agree via coercion anyway.  Bitcoin was not designed to enforce the status quo.  If you believe it was, I'm afraid you have been grossly misinformed.

Simple question, which scenario sounds more decentralised?

a)  A single development team produce code which all users run without an alternative and there's no point whatsoever even having a consensus mechanism to begin with.

b)  Multiple development teams provide several possibilities for the project's direction and those securing the network determine which code should govern the network using consensus.

_{Hint:  it's definitely not a)}


The lack of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, indeed, but the lack of wisdom is even worse.  

We've got a beautiful thing going here, so I don't understand why people want to ruin it by pushing a closed, restrictive mindset on an open and permissionless system.  Recognise and appreciate what you've got, ingrates.

Because I dont think that Classic and Unlimited has the best interests of Bitcoin as a goal. I think they are selfish and want to use bitcoin as a lab rat to prove their own ideas, even at the expense of risking 15 billion of other people's money.

So far the Core team is the most respected, and although the repo is closed, everyone has commit access, and then experts can choose what will be implemented or not.

The code adding forum is open, it's just that the final word rests in the hands of experts, which it should be.

And you're perfectly free to express that view in the code you freely choose to run.  But not everyone shares your view and they're free to run any code they like.  Hence the need for a consensus mechanism.  

It was already pretty clearly established that your only concern is with the fiat value of your coins, you support enforcing an oligarchy in Bitcoin and you feel you have an inalienable right to tell other people what code they can and can't run to protect your fiat investment.  As such, quite frankly, you're an insult to your own username and your view couldn't count for less.

The fact that Bitcoin is both open-source and a consensus mechanism means that anyone can not only read the code, but also alter it and make their own clients with their own custom rules to govern the network.  However, these rules only come into being if enough users securing the network agree with them.  This is more powerful than most people realise.  

Anyone perceiving an alternate client with a fork proposal as a threat, or worse still, calling it an attempt at a coup or dictatorship, or thinking that all the core devs have to agree all the time has fundamentally misunderstood the concept of open-source decentralisation.  Just because the majority of the users securing the network agree that Bitcoin Core is the correct rule set to govern the network at the moment, it does not mean that this will always be so.  Being a developer for Bitcoin Core does not grant you any special power or authority over the network, nor should it.

The definition of "consensus" in Bitcoin is not a single group of developers agreeing on a rule and the network enforcing it without question.  The true meaning of consensus is that any developer can propose a rule and the network chooses whether to enforce it or not.  Ergo, Bitcoin is inherently resistant to authoritarianism.  It would be incredibly difficult for a single developer to seize control or enforce rules that the majority disagree with.  

[RealBitcoin]

And you're perfectly free to express that view in the code you freely choose to run.  But not everyone shares your view and they're free to run any code they like.  Hence the need for a consensus mechanism.  

It was already pretty clearly established that your only concern is with the fiat value of your coins, you support enforcing an oligarchy in Bitcoin and you feel you have an inalienable right to tell other people what code they can and can't run to protect your fiat investment.  As such, quite frankly, you're an insult to your own username and your view couldn't count for less.

The fact that Bitcoin is both open-source and a consensus mechanism means that anyone can not only read the code, but also alter it and make their own clients with their own custom rules to govern the network.  However, these rules only come into being if enough users securing the network agree with them.  This is more powerful than most people realise.  

Anyone perceiving an alternate client with a fork proposal as a threat, or worse still, calling it an attempt at a coup or dictatorship, or thinking that all the core devs have to agree all the time has fundamentally misunderstood the concept of open-source decentralisation.  Just because the majority of the users securing the network agree that Bitcoin Core is the correct rule set to govern the network at the moment, it does not mean that this will always be so.  Being a developer for Bitcoin Core does not grant you any special power or authority over the network, nor should it.

The definition of "consensus" in Bitcoin is not a single group of developers agreeing on a rule and the network enforcing it without question.  The true meaning of consensus is that any developer can propose a rule and the network chooses whether to enforce it or not.  Ergo, Bitcoin is inherently resistant to authoritarianism.  It would be incredibly difficult for a single developer to seize control or enforce rules that the majority disagree with.  

You are talking bullshit.

What I said was that Bitcoin Core has total rights over their own Repo.

I didn't said that Classic and Unlimited doesn't have a right to exist, you are putting words in my mouth.

However Classic and Unlimited doesnt want to compete with Core, they want to take over Core , which is quite different.

They want to be included in the Core Development team, that is my main issue.

And to which I said that the Core team is closed and that in my opinion it's better as it is. They have a monopoly, and that is quite justified.

But if you want to compete with them, nobody is stopping you, just that dont try to overthrow and subvert their software, that is my point.

[DooMAD]

And you're perfectly free to express that view in the code you freely choose to run.  But not everyone shares your view and they're free to run any code they like.  Hence the need for a consensus mechanism.  

It was already pretty clearly established that your only concern is with the fiat value of your coins, you support enforcing an oligarchy in Bitcoin and you feel you have an inalienable right to tell other people what code they can and can't run to protect your fiat investment.  As such, quite frankly, you're an insult to your own username and your view couldn't count for less.

The fact that Bitcoin is both open-source and a consensus mechanism means that anyone can not only read the code, but also alter it and make their own clients with their own custom rules to govern the network.  However, these rules only come into being if enough users securing the network agree with them.  This is more powerful than most people realise.  

Anyone perceiving an alternate client with a fork proposal as a threat, or worse still, calling it an attempt at a coup or dictatorship, or thinking that all the core devs have to agree all the time has fundamentally misunderstood the concept of open-source decentralisation.  Just because the majority of the users securing the network agree that Bitcoin Core is the correct rule set to govern the network at the moment, it does not mean that this will always be so.  Being a developer for Bitcoin Core does not grant you any special power or authority over the network, nor should it.

The definition of "consensus" in Bitcoin is not a single group of developers agreeing on a rule and the network enforcing it without question.  The true meaning of consensus is that any developer can propose a rule and the network chooses whether to enforce it or not.  Ergo, Bitcoin is inherently resistant to authoritarianism.  It would be incredibly difficult for a single developer to seize control or enforce rules that the majority disagree with.  

You are talking bullshit.

What I said was that Bitcoin Core has total rights over their own Repo.

I didn't said that Classic and Unlimited doesn't have a right to exist, you are putting words in my mouth.

However Classic and Unlimited doesnt want to compete with Core, they want to take over Core , which is quite different.

They want to be included in the Core Development team, that is my main issue.

And to which I said that the Core team is closed and that in my opinion it's better as it is. They have a monopoly, and that is quite justified.

But if you want to compete with them, nobody is stopping you, just that dont try to overthrow and subvert their software, that is my point.

Someone needs to put words in your mouth because your own words don't make a shred of sense.  How does alternative code pose a threat to the code in Core's repo?  In what conceivable way is it overthrowing or subverting their software?  Why would "they" want to be included in the Core development team if they don't agree with the course Core have set?  What are you going to do if Core lose their way at some point in future but there's no alternative because you wanted a monopoly?  

Luckily you don't have to answer that last one because your misguided notion of monopoly isn't enforced in the code.  The consensus mechanism you purport to preserve is actually the safety net that prevents monopoly, so users will always have a choice if our direction becomes wayward.  Something tells me you're never going to grasp that fact.  I don't know how you can sit there and claim you know what's best for Bitcoin when such a simple notion is so completely lost on you.

There is no such thing as a takeover attempt when it's the users securing the network who determine the code.  Developers releasing code does not and cannot constitute a coup.  The code is inert if no one runs it.  Users will always have the option of running Core's code if they so choose.  So it stands to reason that your insecurities don't lie with the developers you lash out at, but with those securing the network who don't share your authoritarian views.  

You are afraid of the very consensus mechanism you claim to defend.  You don't trust the market to govern itself.  You opt for authoritarian interventionism at every opportunity.  You are literally a cancer to decentralisation if you believe in 100% centralised development.  There's no other way to say it.

[2double0]

OP, I think that KYC is actually needed to be done to fight cases where scams may occur.
So, giving real info is the only option to deal with those issues, which is why talking about anonymity is just a "talk" only and not going to be possible until everyone goes honest and starts using bitcoin-only websites where no such details are needed to buy/sell anything.

[RealBitcoin]

Someone needs to put words in your mouth because your own words don't make a shred of sense.  How does alternative code pose a threat to the code in Core's repo?  In what conceivable way is it overthrowing or subverting their software?  Why would "they" want to be included in the Core development team if they don't agree with the course Core have set?  What are you going to do if Core lose their way at some point in future but there's no alternative because you wanted a monopoly? 

Luckily you don't have to answer that last one because your misguided notion of monopoly isn't enforced in the code.  The consensus mechanism you purport to preserve is actually the safety net that prevents monopoly, so users will always have a choice if our direction becomes wayward.  Something tells me you're never going to grasp that fact.  I don't know how you can sit there and claim you know what's best for Bitcoin when such a simple notion is so completely lost on you.

There is no such thing as a takeover attempt when it's the users securing the network who determine the code.  Developers releasing code does not and cannot constitute a coup.  The code is inert if no one runs it.  Users will always have the option of running Core's code if they so choose.  So it stands to reason that your insecurities don't lie with the developers you lash out at, but with those securing the network who don't share your authoritarian views. 

You are afraid of the very consensus mechanism you claim to defend.  You don't trust the market to govern itself.  You opt for authoritarian interventionism at every opportunity.  You are literally a cancer to decentralisation if you believe in 100% centralised development.  There's no other way to say it.

You are still talking bullshit, and putting words in my mouth.

The only thing that I admitted to is that Core is superior and it should have monopoly if people agree to it.

I havent said that other options are not welcome. Well they are, but if they are crap, they cant compete anyway.

You dont know the difference between forced monopoly by decree, and voluntary monopoly by superiority.

Nobody is forcing people to use Core, but its still the best because it is of high quality, whereas the other clients are pretty subversive and quite dangerous.