Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized

[VeritasSapere]

There are thousands of miners all over the world, I am one of them. There are five Core developers with commit access and only one person who has the final say in Core. I think most people here will know that what I am saying here is true.

There are actually seven developers with commit access. Who do you claim has the final say, and how so?

I believe it is Wladimir who has the final say as the lead developer for Core, and the seven developers with commit access each have veto power over each other as well. Thank you for the correction.

There are 11 major mining pools. The pool operators have the final say on what the pool mines. Even though you are a miner, you have no say in what goes into the block. You could of course change pools if you don't like what the pool is doing, but if no other pool does what you want, then solo mining or starting your own pool isn't going to make much of a difference in anything. So when it comes to mining, only the pool operators of the 11 major pools actually matter, and they make mining centralized.

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point, I have argued extensively that this is not the case. I have argued that the pools are like a form of representative democracy for the miners. The pools serve the miners, it is the miners that have all of the power in this relationship, since they control the hashpower. I think that Bitcoin even depends on this presumption, this is part of the game theory behind mining. If what you where saying where true it would mean that Bitcoin is fundementally broken today, I do not think this is the case. I suppose you think that Bitcoin is broken and that Core has to fix it.

I have the freedom of choice by choosing which pool to mine with. If there are no pools that exist that support my point of view a new pool can be created and if there are enough people that think this way it will be viable. Even the situation today is prove that is the case. We have pools supporting both sides of the blocksize debate presently, some pools even giving people choice within the pool itself.

By deciding on the blocksize they are deciding on the price of transacting on the network. I was referring to blockspace when using the term supply, that in a supply and demand economy, the miners represent the supply for blockspace, and the users the demand. Whereas Core does not actually fit into this model at all.

The developers are not supplying anything except code. Like you said, the miners determine the supply of block space, and the miners can choose whether they want to use one implementation or another, the core developers aren't forcing anyone to do anything.

Exactly, this is what I have been saying. This depends on the will of the participants of the network as well. If people do not think they have a choice then surely they would not make that step. People being well informed makes a big difference.

[achow101]

I believe it is Wladimir who has the final say as the lead developer for Core, and the seven developers with commit access each have veto power over each other as well. Thank you for the correction.

Wladimir is just the release maintainer, meaning that he tags the releases, signs the final binaries, and publishes them. He doesn't have the final say even though he is primarily the person who merges PRs. Any of the other developers with commit access can override each other.

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point, I have argued extensively that this is not the case. I have argued that the pools are like a form of representative democracy for the miners. The pools serve the miners, it is the miners that have all of the power in this relationship, since they control the hashpower. I think that Bitcoin even depends on this presumption, this is part of the game theory behind mining. If what you where saying where true it would mean that Bitcoin is fundementally broken today, I do not think this is the case.

Agreed (to disagree)

But, I think that many (but not all of them) miners are in it for the money. So while yes the pool is kind of a representative democracy, many miners probably don't care as long as the money keeps coming in. In that case then, the pool operators can do whatever they want and as long as the miners are paid, they don't care.

Exactly, this is what I have been saying. This depends on the will of the participants of the network as well. If people do not think they have a choice then surely they would not make that step. People being well informed makes a big difference.

Agreed, being well informed does help, and I think this thread with its infographic is a good job for that as it can actually explain what the Core plan is in layman terms to better educate the masses.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

•Lightning Network and •Payment Channels each has its own bullet point. Why? Isn't LN a payment channel system?

[VeritasSapere]

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point, I have argued extensively that this is not the case. I have argued that the pools are like a form of representative democracy for the miners. The pools serve the miners, it is the miners that have all of the power in this relationship, since they control the hashpower. I think that Bitcoin even depends on this presumption, this is part of the game theory behind mining. If what you where saying where true it would mean that Bitcoin is fundementally broken today, I do not think this is the case.

Agreed (to disagree)

But, I think that many (but not all of them) miners are in it for the money. So while yes the pool is kind of a representative democracy, many miners probably don't care as long as the money keeps coming in. In that case then, the pool operators can do whatever they want and as long as the miners are paid, they don't care.

That is how Bitcoin works, the miners are incentivized to do whatever is best for the network, which is what returns value back to the miners, the miners also have a lasting stake in Bitcoin which aligns their incentivizes with those of the economic majority. It is exactly because of this selfish self interest that mining works, much like capitalism, peoples greed bringing about a greater good. I honestly believe if this was not the case Bitcoin would be fundamentally flawed.

Exactly, this is what I have been saying. This depends on the will of the participants of the network as well. If people do not think they have a choice then surely they would not make that step. People being well informed makes a big difference.

Agreed, being well informed does help, and I think this thread with its infographic is a good job for that as it can actually explain what the Core plan is in layman terms to better educate the masses.

I think it leaves out some important aspects myself, but Lauda certainly did do a good job making that infographic, does look nice, explains the things that it does explain well.

[VeritasSapere]

For you to think that basic economic principles are not relevant in a discussion of free markets and the future economics of Bitcoin then I think you are missing a very large part of the picture.

The thread is about any of the points found on the info-graphic. It is not about the 'free markets', 'future economics' nor any kind of economics. Even if any of this is related, I don't want it in my thread (nor is it suitable for this sub-forum).

I would hope that the Bitcoin Core roadmap would have taken account of the economics of what they are doing. Since they have decided to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin with this roadmap.

Almost everything in Bitcoin relates back to economics. I find it hard to imagine how you think that economics is off topic for any Bitcoin discussion. Considering that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. This question for Bitcoins future whether we have a "low volume high cost" network or a "high volume low cost" network are fundamental and very much do relate to this roadmap.

I was going to thank you for being so freedom minded by not deleting my posts. But I suppose I can take this as a threat that you will start deleting my posts, so I suppose this will be my last message on this thread then.

Not really. Posts by people who are on my ignore list get deleted automatically regardless of the contents. Otherwise I try not to delete many others. If you keep it on-topic then there is no reason for me to delete you posts (keep in mind that blind propaganda such as "Blockstream is a company and thus must be evil" will not be tolerated).

Thank you for not deleting any of the of the posts I have made on this thread but I can not comment on this thread any longer. I think that the idea that economic discussion will be censored unreasonable. Even the threat of censorship is stifling.

[Lauda]

•Lightning Network and •Payment Channels each has its own bullet point. Why? Isn't LN a payment channel system?

It is supposed to be one, yes. As you've seen recently there are paid shills advocating against LN (e.g. Thread about 21 inc "doing LN the right way").

I would hope that the Bitcoin Core roadmap would have taken account of the economics of what they are doing. Since they have decided to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin with this roadmap.

I'm sure that they have. I've already told you and explained to you that adoption on a global scale is not possible via the block size limit. Not possible without sacrificing decentralization and this is something that the Core developers are trying to avoid.

Almost everything in Bitcoin relates back to economics. I find it hard to imagine how you think that economics is off topic for any Bitcoin discussion. Considering that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. This question for Bitcoins future whether we have a "low volume high cost" network or a "high volume low cost" network are fundamental and very much do relate to this roadmap.

So if you want to discuss the hash functions you have to include economics? No. You can't have a 'low volume - high cost network'. If there is inadequate volume then the cost can't even go up. I'm certain that the 'fee market' would be fine for some time. Initially what would happen is somewhere along these lines:
Fees are low (blocks are full) -> groups of people keep increasing fees to gain priority -> cost becomes higher -> certain people temporarily don't transact -> fees become lower (as blocks aren't full).
I'm not saying that I prefer people temporarily not transacting, but I'm saying that we should be reasonable and not hyperbolic when it comes to this.

Thank you for not deleting any of the of the posts I have made on this thread but I can not comment on this thread any longer. I think that the idea that economic discussion will be censored unreasonable. Even the threat of censorship is stifling.

No. This is not censorship, it even says so on the top of the thread:"This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.".

[Lauda]

It seems that we're still on track with Segwit for April. Consensus has been reached in China, for now.