Please list arguments against the idea of taking away Gavins' alert keys

[forlackofabettername]

Proposal: Ask the other coredevs to fork the github away from Gavin to take away the alert keys and commit access from him . This comes as a reaction to him not honoring the consensus process and actually engaging in a software propagation war which is actually a hostile takeover attempt and for putting investors into massive unease with this shenangians aswell as stealing countless hours of everyone with his kindergarden, and even impacting the market negatively and hurt investors confidence a great deal.

I think we have sufficient reason to make this proposal and i feel many will support it.

Consensus works this way: Someone makes a proposal and if there are no concerns raised or veto given then there shall be a consensus.  

So i raise the question here what are the things and concerns that would speak against this proposal?
Because if nobody raises concern and can defend that sufficiently we'd have a consensus for it.

So if you are against revoking Gavins' commit access aswell as alert keys: now is the time to speak out. If nobody does, the consensus would be established already with a proposal meeting no veto.

Please, if you have valid and rational concerns about revoking Gavins' alert keys and commit access list them below. Thanks.

[Elwar]

So you don't think we should follow the BIP way of adding features to the wallet?

Does a consensus approach seem like the best way to make changes to Bitcoin?

[forlackofabettername]

So you don't think we should follow the BIP way of adding features to the wallet?

This isn't a feature in the wallet.

Does a consensus approach seem like the best way to make changes to Bitcoin?

Looks like it's unavoidable. Actually consensus rule works great in many cases and ensures something is supported by very many people when a real consensus is found. Employed correctly it can bring great benefits... Bitcoin runs on it so how could there be a better method? Actual consensus means change is supported by more than a supermajority or at least not opposed by people.


Right now we certainly don't have consensus for a Gavin with Alertkeys so i thought i'd bring up this topic to test if there was even still support for him in any way, because if it wasn't, consensus would actually lean more towards the new proposal to exclude him.

So that's why we're interested in voices and arguments against an exclusion of Gavin as those arguments will be the only obstacles to overcome to reach solid consensus on the proposal.

So don't be shy, list your long and personal list why you think Gavin holding the alert keys is absolutely vital for Bitcoins' viability and why the sky would fall for you if a consensus would be forming for his exclusion. I'm begging you please give your reasons to oppose this very simple one-line and non-code proposal!  

[Lauda]

How about this proposal:
They actually ask Gavin about it? There is no reason to be waging unneeded wars, hopefully the peaceful method is going to work.

[forlackofabettername]

How about this proposal:
They actually ask Gavin about it? There is no reason to be waging unneeded wars, hopefully the peaceful method is going to work.

Asking Gavin already happened. He does not react. So that's that.

Shouldn't be preceived as 'war'. We're just looking for a consensus which in case it can be found is likely the opposite of war as it would put all this upheaval in the community to rest and we could go back to fight bulls vs bears instead of Gavincoin vs Core which i think everyone prefers.
I'm just proposing the most simple and obvious solution to the blocksize debate and i think this proposal should be absolutely included for the options to resolve the "great bitcoin blocksize crisis"

[Elwar]

So you don't think we should follow the BIP way of adding features to the wallet?

This isn't a feature in the wallet.

Does a consensus approach seem like the best way to make changes to Bitcoin?

Looks like it's unavoidable. Actually consensus rule works great in many cases and ensures something is supported by very many people when a real consensus is found. Employed correctly it can bring great benefits... Bitcoin runs on it so how could there be a better method? Actual consensus means change is supported by more than a supermajority or at least not opposed by people.


Right now we certainly don't have consensus for a Gavin with Alertkeys so i thought i'd bring up this topic to test if there was even still support for him in any way, because if it wasn't, consensus would actually lean more towards the new proposal to exclude him.

So that's why we're interested in voices and arguments against an exclusion of Gavin as those arguments will be the only obstacles to overcome to reach solid consensus on the proposal.

So don't be shy, list your long and personal list why you think Gavin holding the alert keys is absolutely vital for Bitcoins' viability and why the sky would fall for you if a consensus would be forming for his exclusion. I'm begging you please give your reasons to oppose this very simple one-line and non-code proposal!  

But all past changes to Bitcoin have been through the BIP process, a consensus approach would be different from the past approach to changes.

What would we do, create a new wallet without Gavin's Alertkeys and if enough people adopt that new wallet without the keys then eventually it forks and we move forward with the new consensus wallet?

[forlackofabettername]

But all past changes to Bitcoin have been through the BIP process, a consensus approach would be different from the past approach to changes.

What would we do, create a new wallet without Gavin's Alertkeys and if enough people adopt that new wallet without the keys then eventually it forks and we move forward with the new consensus wallet?

It's about consensus in the community and not in the code. So BIP makes not a lot of sense here. Showing the fastest route, that's all.

What would we do to create Bitcoin without Gavin? Just look for a broad consensus in the community for it and after that is reassured we'd just ask the core devs to look at our community decision and if they aswell agree they could then with the support of the community change with no code changes to a new github without Gavin commit access or alert keys. People could then choose to update to the new client if they wish to not be bothered by Gavincoin-spam in their Bitcoin wallet or just use the old one in case they don't care about the alerts.
Actually for users not a lot changes. The only sideeffect i could imagine would be the one from Gavin loosing his mind and abusing his old alert keys to confuse people who haven't upgraded to non-Gavin-Bitcoin yet.  
So basically nothing would change except Core moving to new github with new alert keys. End users shouldn't notice. Miners don't need to upgrade. Change is potentially reversible (but unlikely to reverse afterwards) and has no impact on the network, market or miners whatsoever. It doesn't even need testing on testnet! No change to the code and can be done in an afternoon. Discussion could be brief and action swift.

I think if someone disregards consensus process in the devteam and starts to attack the network he himself has actual commit access and alert keys to that's a pretty good reason to reevaluate if we still feel much longer comfortable with Gavin.

[Lauda]

Asking Gavin already happened. He does not react. So that's that.

Shouldn't be preceived as 'war'. We're just looking for a consensus which in case it can be found is likely the opposite of war as it would put all this upheaval in the community to rest and we could go back to fight bulls vs bears instead of Gavincoin vs Core which i think everyone prefers.
I'm just proposing the most simple and obvious solution to the blocksize debate and i think this proposal should be absolutely included for the options to resolve the "great bitcoin blocksize crisis"

Can you provide a link to that?
They were fighting over the fork, so I don't see a reason for them not to fight over this. You should be aware of the amount of drama that there was (is) due to the fork.

However I'm not sure if forking is the right move.

[DooMAD]

It still makes no sense how people can think consensus means "a small minority of coders have to agree all the time".  Consensus is what the majority of the users securing the network agree on.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly (yes, OP, I'm talking to you and anyone else with your broken mindset).  If you genuinely want a protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You don't belong here.  Go away.

[Elwar]

But all past changes to Bitcoin have been through the BIP process, a consensus approach would be different from the past approach to changes.

What would we do, create a new wallet without Gavin's Alertkeys and if enough people adopt that new wallet without the keys then eventually it forks and we move forward with the new consensus wallet?

It's about consensus in the community and not in the code. So BIP makes not a lot of sense here. Showing the fastest route, that's all.

What would we do to create Bitcoin without Gavin? Just look for a broad consensus in the community for it and after that is reassured we'd just ask the core devs to look at our community decision and if they aswell agree they could then with the support of the community change with no code changes to a new github without Gavin commit access or alert keys. People could then choose to update to the new client if they wish to not be bothered by Gavincoin-spam in their Bitcoin wallet or just use the old one in case they don't care about the alerts.
Actually for users not a lot changes. The only sideeffect i could imagine would be the one from Gavin loosing his mind and abusing his old alert keys to confuse people who haven't upgraded to non-Gavin-Bitcoin yet.  
So basically nothing would change except Core moving to new github with new alert keys. End users shouldn't notice. Miners don't need to upgrade. Change is potentially reversible (but unlikely to reverse afterwards) and has no impact on the network, market or miners whatsoever. It doesn't even need testing on testnet! No change to the code and can be done in an afternoon. Discussion could be brief and action swift.

Ya, I guess that makes sense...just create a new wallet and if enough people adopt it then consensus is reached and the new code would be in place for Bitcoin.

If only they used your approach for getting consensus on a new blocksize.

[forlackofabettername]

Can you provide a link to that?
They were fighting over the fork, so I don't see a reason for them not to fight over this. You should be aware of the amount of drama that there was (is) due to the fork.

However I'm not sure if forking is the right move.

I'd need to search a great deal for that link but you can actually go and ask him yourself. Maybe he is more responsive to you?
When the community can establish this proposal as a solid consensus there wouldn't be more 'fighting' in the devteam. They'd just discuss an afternoon without Gavin about it and then say "yes" or "no, because ... "
This thing is a non-code change and thus can be sought after in the community. The devteam does not need to start discussions about bitcoin that do not concern code. That's the part of the community, i think.  

Forking the github (not the network) is the move proposed in this proposal which has generally no big impact if there is a consensus for that change. If there are better routes let me know but i think there aren't any to exclude Gavin without much more drama.
If there were other proposals to do it differently you can make a new thread in a similar fashion and we could discuss it as an alternative proposal.

Ever thought about the dev team actually hoping for this to pop up as it's totally not on any of them to bring up this proposal? This particular proposal can only be started and debated in the community and only if we are able to reach a good consensus on the issue we'd even go and bother the devs about it.

It still makes no sense how people can think consensus means "a small minority of coders have to agree all the time".  Consensus is what the majority of the users securing the network agree on.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly.  If you genuinely want protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You don't belong here.  Go away.

Hate to repeat myself: he has commit access and even the alert keys to the coin he starts to propagate alternative software to outside of the original devteam, de facto starting a software propagation war with the very people he supposedly works with and potentially tainting the whole thing badly or even crashing the market to worthless.
Its not about asking the devteam as we all know people could vote to move away from them aswell but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to take away Gavins' (and possibly Mikes') alert keys and commit access because we have reason to ask for it. The current other coredevs aren't up for discussion in this proposal and thus they'd probably be the ones doing it. So actually that comment didn't make much sense to me.

Ya, I guess that makes sense...just create a new wallet and if enough people adopt it then consensus is reached and the new code would be in place for Bitcoin.

If only they used your approach for getting consensus on a new blocksize.

Not exactly. First talk to people (that's what we currently do), make that proposal (happening right here) and if there is no strong enough opposition to that proposal we can then go ahead and take it a step further. So that's why we're asking for opposing arguments or concerns to this particular proposal!  
If no opposition springs up we could already have reached a very solid consensus. Ultra fast lane to consensus!  (definition: absolutely no opposition to a proposal means consensus - that's what we're trying now)
So before the change comes people will know it and support it. If there is any kicking and screaming (like we saw recently) then we can assume there is no consensus! So i'm asking for the kicking and screaming up front now and if there is nothing of that, then we're on the fast lane because no concerns or veto for a particular proposal means after doublechecking if the consensus is real we could go ahead with implementation.
The right to veto (including reason) for minorities stays fully intact and thus it's a 100% valid consensus seeking process.

[DooMAD]

It still makes no sense how people can think consensus means "a small minority of coders have to agree all the time".  Consensus is what the majority of the users securing the network agree on.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly.  If you genuinely want a protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You don't belong here.  Go away.

Hate to repeat myself: he has commit access and even the alert keys to the coin he starts to propagate alternative software to outside of the original devteam, de facto starting a software propagation war and potentially tainting the whole thing badly or even crashing the market to worthless.
Its not about asking the devteam as we all know people could vote to move away from them aswell but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to take away Gavins' and Mikes' alert keys and commit access because we have reason to ask for it. The current other coredevs aren't up for discussion in this proposal and thus they'd probably be the ones doing it. So actually that comment didn't make much sense to me.

So who should have the alert key?  If whatever client you choose to run has an alert key system, there will always be a group or individual in control of that system.  Any developer could, in theory, use that system at any time to give out any message they wanted.  But at the end of the day, it's a message.  No one can force a user to update their client.  Your argument is that Gavin could potentially use it to tell users to upgrade to XT, but I think you'll find he's already telling users that they can upgrade to XT when the time comes, so who cares?  Commit access is also irrelevant.  If the code contains a feature users don't approve of, they aren't going to run that code.  Anyone can release a Bitcoin client at any time, under any name, with any features they so choose.  If you decide to use that client, it means you agree with the code those developers have put in place.  Your assumption that the current group of developers (minus Gavin and Mike) are in a better position to be trusted with the alert keys and commit access, as if they were some permanent authority on what Bitcoin is and should be, is entirely flawed.  On top of that, there's also no reason whatsoever why Gavin and Mike can't continue to contribute code to core, because there may be other features and changes where all the developers of core do happen to agree.  It's not "them versus us", so stop trying to paint it as such.

Your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  Grow up.  That's not how this works.  Developers can disagree as much as they like, because ultimately, it's not their decision how the network should be run.  

[forlackofabettername]

So who should have the alert key?  If whatever client you choose to run has an alert key system, there will always be a group or individual in control of that system.  Any developer could, in theory, use that system at any time to give out any message they wanted.  But at the end of the day, it's a message.  No one can force a user to update their client.  Your argument is that Gavin could potentially use it to tell users to upgrade to XT, but I think you'll find he's already telling users that they can upgrade to XT when the time comes, so who cares?  Commit access is also irrelevant.  If the code contains a feature users don't approve of, they aren't going to run that code.  Anyone can release a Bitcoin client at any time, under any name, with any features they so choose.  If you decide to use that client, it means you agree with the code those developers have put in place.  Your assumption that the current group of developers (minus Gavin and Mike) are in a better position to be trusted with the alert keys and commit access, as if they were some permanent authority on what Bitcoin is and should be, is entirely flawed.  On top of that, there's also no reason whatsoever why Gavin and Mike can't continue to contribute code to core, because there may be other features and changes where all the developers of core do happen to agree.  It's not "them versus us", so stop trying to paint it as such.

Your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  Grow up.  That's not how this works.  Developers can disagree as much as they like, because ultimately, it's not their decision how the network should be run.  

Who should end up with the alert keys can be sorted out in some second tier proposals. This is just a proposal to remove it from Gavin. Who should have them afterwards needs to be sought after later in case we can reach a consensus on this proposal. One step at a time.

It is our problem what we propose and we ask for opposing concerns. You delivered none so far. For you to understand the motive behind this proposal it should be sufficient to say "we don't feel comfortable anymore with alertkeys with Gavin because we fear abuse" and "Gavin made the impression to some people to actually attack and harm Bitcoin and the investors' confidence in it". We have the right to propose this. Not to mention it would be relief to many longterm investors and not yet tech savvy newcomers alike and also a burden taken off the community as we would be back to normal and the job back to the devs to solve the issue with a consensus instead of a software propagation war. This proposal also brings an end to the FUD. It in effect is a valid resolution for the current blocksize debate. So, yes, it's a valid proposal and people have every right to make this proposal as it solves the current toxic and unfruitful blocksize debate instantly and helps core devs to come back around to actually do their job properly and solve problems within their consensus framework. I think with Gavin excluded from Bitcoin it will have a better chance on finding itelligent solutions which can get a proper consensus for the problem of scaling.
Maybe it's in the end of the day actually just a vote for consensus instead of against it ...
So, yes, i think this proposal makes a hell lot of sense.

So if you can't offer rational argument for why Gavin has to stay in control of the alertkeys then i think it's safe to say there haven't been any such points raised. All you say is "i think your proposal is shit" ... and that's not sufficient to be taken seriously, i fear.

[DooMAD]

Who should end up with the alert keys can be sorted out in some second tier proposals. This is just a proposal to remove it from Gavin. Who should have them afterwards needs to be sought after later in case we can reach a consensus on this proposal. One step at a time.

It is our problem what we propose and we ask for opposing concerns. You delivered none so far. For you to understand the motive behind this proposal it should be sufficient to say "we don't feel comfortable anymore with alertkeys with Gavin because we fear abuse" and "Gavin made the impression to some people to actually attack and harm Bitcoin and the investors' confidence in it". We have the right to propose this.

So if you can't offer rational argument for why Gavin has to stay in control of the alertkeys then i think it's safe to say there haven't been any such points raised. All you say is "i think your proposal is shit" ... and that's not sufficient to be taken seriously, i fear.

Bolded your overly-emotive wording to highlight the real problem here.  You fear too much and for no reason.  If you want a "rational argument", I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence of that in what you're writing here.  You aren't being rational at all.  Anyone reading this thread who actually understands how this system works, will come away from this thread with the resounding impression that your argument is "anyone should have the keys but Gavin because I don't understand how decentralisation works and I've worked myself into a panic over nothing".  You can work yourself into a panic if you want, but those with any sense whatsoever won't be joining you.

Think it through for a just a moment.  What's really the simplest solution here?  Your proposal is that Bitcoin core has to be the only client for the rest of forever and all developers have to agree on everything for the rest of forever.  Every time someone doesn't agree, a larger number of people have to reach an agreement that the developer who didn't agree has to be stripped of their ability to contribute code or Bitcoin will die a horrible death?  I'm sorry, but that's stupid.  There's no polite way of saying it.  

The easiest and most simple solution, which is the one we're already using, is that any developer can release any client they want and the users make the final decision.  It doesn't matter if you don't trust one particular developer because it isn't your sole decision and it isn't the sole decision of the developer you don't like.  It is the decision of the majority of users securing the network.  That's what consensus means.  If you can't grasp this simple fact, Bitcoin isn't for you.  Either you accept the decision of the majority, or you don't.  Those are the two options.  Pick one.

[forlackofabettername]

You didn't read my last comment. I'd continue conversation with you in case you can raise rational points to why Gavin (and nobody else) needs to hold the keys.  


--------------
edit: btw if like you say everyone would just go rogue that would result in accidental fork and chaos relative rapidly. There is a good reason the devteam uses consensus methods to release a software that's kind-of official. It avoids confusion, scams and accidental forks of the network. Everyone releasing rogue software will not work in the long run, but that's total offtopic now.

another point:

It is the decision of the majority of users securing the network.  That's what consensus means.  

This is actually contradiction because consensus isn't equal to majority vote. Totally not. Maybe you, sir, go and look up a definition for 'consensus' before spreading more nonsense. Cheers!

also on 'fear': it's the first letter in FUD and also a force driving markets. So i think we can express it. Replace with 'concern' if it suits you better.

[DooMAD]

You didn't read my last comment. I'd continue conversation with you in case you can raise rational points to why Gavin (and nobody else) needs to hold the keys.  

I thoroughly read your last comment.  I understand that you honestly believe the alert keys can be abused and that the whole network will come crashing down in spectacular fashion.  But you honestly believe this because you don't understand that the alert keys really aren't that powerful.  I could write in this thread in big red letters:

HEY EVERYONE, UPGRADE TO XT RIGHT NOW!

And that would be about as effective as a malicious developer "abusing" the keys to further their own agenda.  Any user who is capable of mining or running their own node should be sufficiently capable to make a decision on what software to run.  Even if there's a message from a developer saying there's a different version available, it doesn't mean they're going to run that code.  

I repeat again, your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  

In no uncertain terms:  The. Alert. Keys. Are. Not. An. Issue.

another point:

It is the decision of the majority of users securing the network.  That's what consensus means.  

This is actually contradiction because consensus isn't equal to majority vote. Totally not. Maybe you, sir, go and look up a definition for 'consensus' before spreading more nonsense. Cheers!

For a fork to occur, there has to be a majority.  Sure, 53% for example wouldn't be enough of a majority, but the word "majority" doesn't magically change to a different word when we reach the required proportion of the network.  It doesn't mean 100% of users have to agree and it definitely doesn't mean all the developers have to agree.  You can try to twist that any way you like, but it doesn't make it any less true.  Try less clutching at straws and more trying to understand what I'm telling you. 

[Elwar]

HEY EVERYONE, UPGRADE TO XT RIGHT NOW!

OP is basically making that argument and wants everyone to upgrade to XT.

One one side of the blockchain upgrade proposal are the folks that say we need to follow the BIP process for any Bitcoin upgrade.

On the other side, Gavin and Mike Hearn after much discussion have left the decision to the Bitcoin community.

If enough people start using the XT wallet then consensus will be reached and the block size will be upgraded. A method the OP appears to prefer. As opposed to the BIP process used previously.

[Lauda]

I thoroughly read your last comment.  I understand that you honestly believe the alert keys can be abused and that the whole network will come crashing down in spectacular fashion.  But you honestly believe this because you don't understand that the alert keys really aren't that powerful.  I could write in this thread in big red letters:

HEY EVERYONE, UPGRADE TO XT RIGHT NOW!

And that would be about as effective as a malicious developer "abusing" the keys to further their own agenda.  Any user who is capable of mining or running their own node should be sufficiently capable to make a decision on what software to run.  Even if there's a message from a developer saying there's a different version available, it doesn't mean they're going to run that code.  

I repeat again, your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  

I disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that the average user of Bitcoin has no idea of what is going on behind the scenes apart from reading a bit on some news website (which mostly spread FUD).
I think that alert keys have a certain power to them, else he would just give them up. However, it really depends on how much the person is familiar with the situation and his own judgement.

Also I do not agree with the use of power to take away the keys nor forking again.


Update: I didn't realize that you were talking about that.

[Elwar]

My argument against it would be that Satoshi still holds those keys as well. I respect Satoshi enough to not take that from him.

[forlackofabettername]

@DooMAD

We're actually discussing a clear cut proposal, not the emotions of people proposing it ... ad hominem btw ...

@Elwar

Worst and most screwed up trolling i've seen in a while ...
on second comment: satoshi could be dead

@LaudaM
Forking the github is an entirely different thing than forking the netowrk. Forking git does not require any action from users. It's just the formal act of removing Gavins' power to alert Bitcoin users about whatever comes to his mind. Nothing more, nothing less. Replace 'fork github' with 'moving to a new one'. In case we can establish a consensus on it, it would be painless and won't be a big deal in the end of the day.

...............

ok, guys, i'll leave the thread to you for a while and will be coming back around as soon volatility of global markets lets me. Could be a shaky week ahead. I hope some of you raised some rational points why Gavin and nobody else needs to hold the alertkeys till then. If you don't thats fine too.
More "i think you're dumb", "this proposal is shit"  or "does the title read 'update XT'?" can be posted but should not be responded to. See you next week then. Maybe we get some support, maybe we get some alternative resolutions, maybe we get valid concerns raised about this proposal. Anything else would be out of frame and would require a new thread.  I know you dont care but i said it anyways. Have a magnificent week, everyone.