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

[hund]

90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus.

Which is a blatant lie. The Gavincoiners' struggle to rig the polls to 50%. We've seen two polls with large participation which both show Gavincoiners' have possible not even a majority, they are just more obtrusively.

Also at least 3 threads talking about Gavin being possibly of shady background and dealings with three letter agencies. These polls also show around 50% of people do not trust Gavin at all.

Talking about '90%' and 'huge consensus' is a obnoxious attempt of manipulating the discussion.

[Elwar]

90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus.

Which is a blatant lie. The Gavincoiners' struggle to rig the polls to 50%. We've seen two polls with large participation which both show Gavincoiners' have possible not even a majority, they are just more obtrusively.

Also at least 3 threads talking about Gavin being possibly of shady background and dealings with three letter agencies. These polls also show around 50% of people do not trust Gavin at all.

Talking about '90%' and 'huge consensus' is a obnoxious attempt of manipulating the discussion.

The only poll that matters is the amount of people that download and use Bitcoin XT.

People invested in alt coins need not worry about which wallet Bitcoin users are using.

[SebastianJu]

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"

90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus.

Um... i think thats an incorrect interpretation. 90% is ok with a raise of the blocksize. That surely doesnt mean that 90% are ok with the way Gavin is trying to do what he wants.

I think its really not constructive to let it look like there are the one part that is stupid and doesnt see we need a bigger block size. Thats simply not how things are.

Personally i think the ideas and way to act of gavin and hearn is something i dont like and will not support. But im still for a higher blocksize. I think someone who acts that way will act so in the future too, or worse. So as long as this doesnt change i think at one point something unfortunate might happen. Its simply me judging about a character and/or the ideas propagated.

Read it as you wish but i think practically no one is against a raise of blocksize. How it happened that gavin looks like the one who wants the future and the rest are the dumb people that dont want a raise is beyond me. All the critics are because of the way he tries to enforce it.

[turvarya]

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"

90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus.

Um... i think thats an incorrect interpretation. 90% is ok with a raise of the blocksize. That surely doesnt mean that 90% are ok with the way Gavin is trying to do what he wants.

I think its really not constructive to let it look like there are the one part that is stupid and doesnt see we need a bigger block size. Thats simply not how things are.

Personally i think the ideas and way to act of gavin and hearn is something i dont like and will not support. But im still for a higher blocksize. I think someone who acts that way will act so in the future too, or worse. So as long as this doesnt change i think at one point something unfortunate might happen. Its simply me judging about a character and/or the ideas propagated.

Read it as you wish but i think practically no one is against a raise of blocksize. How it happened that gavin looks like the one who wants the future and the rest are the dumb people that dont want a raise is beyond me. All the critics are because of the way he tries to enforce it.

Sure, people are against this raise. I am looking into this discussion for months. Seems like you have just joined after Gavin made this deal with Hearn. That is a result of this whole discussion, not the reason for this discussion.

[Lauda]

source?

He's just spreading nonsense and trying to undermine him. Gavin didn't do anything wrong to Bitcoin. You can make your own fork and try to get the exchanges on board.

-snip- I think Bitcoin would benefit from Gavin taking some distance to it. A lot of people are actually pretty sick of him.

You're telling me that a lot of people are sick of him? The only people that are sick of him are Mircea and his group of mindless followers.
Gavin should be praised for all the work that he has done, and so should every developer.

I wonder why some individuals are really complaining. How about you take up coding and actually contribute to the project? Anyone could do this, however people rather complain that Gavin is a bad person.
Surely he can't be perfect, as no human is. He's prone to make an error or two, although he should be forgiven.

-snip-
Read it as you wish but i think practically no one is against a raise of blocksize. How it happened that gavin looks like the one who wants the future and the rest are the dumb people that dont want a raise is beyond me. All the critics are because of the way he tries to enforce it.

Sure, people are against this raise. I am looking into this discussion for months. Seems like you have just joined after Gavin made this deal with Hearn. That is a result of this whole discussion, not the reason for this discussion.

Well can't really say it like that, however there is something else that we should be looking at. Remember the first time that this discussion came up, like a few months ago? The thread had over 100 pages and I think that the majority were against it back then.
If we look at the amount of people that are supporting the increase now, it has grown exponentially.

[QuestionAuthority]

What a weird thread. People want to take away his ability to send messages? Did he send his penis size or .onion drug links through the alert system? How did he abuse the alert feature? I must have missed a meeting.

[DooMAD]

What a weird thread. People want to take away his ability to send messages? Did he send his penis size or .onion drug links through the alert system? How did he abuse the alert feature? I must have missed a meeting.

Apparently we have no free will or intellect anymore, so if someone sent out a message telling us to upgrade we all have to do it without questioning.  We all have to be shielded from teh evil gavinz because no one can be trusted except the other core developers, who who are automatically right at all times as long as they agree.  

At least that's what I think he's proposing.   

[hikedoon]

 1 = I trust Gavin more then any one else in the current Bitcoin Community.
 2 = I don't know who the fuck you are OP.
 
   

[Kakmakr]

We are all human, and that makes us weak. The question should be, IF Gavin is only partially invested in the Bitcoin development, should he have the Alert keys? I just know Satoshi gave the alert keys to someone he thought was trustworthy and has the best interest of Bitcoin in mind.
What would the need for such keys be, if you are not investing your time and energy into Bitcoin Core development?
If it's only for brag rights or a question of pride, just get over it and pass it on to the next person who wants to lead the Core development. 

[SebastianJu]

Sure, people are against this raise. I am looking into this discussion for months. Seems like you have just joined after Gavin made this deal with Hearn. That is a result of this whole discussion, not the reason for this discussion.

You cant say that people are against an increase only because most community members dont want to do haste things. Gavin acted like if we would meet the blocksizelimit tomorrow. Graphs were posted with exponential axis values that let it look like blocks are already 90% full now and other things.

The thing is that all the other developers see the problem. They only wanted a discussion about the best solution. And as far as i see it nearly no one is against a change in the future, when it becomes a problem. Though most think we have at least time to find the best solution.

You cant say so many are against it only because they dont want to follow gavins idea that we have to do it now, instantly, and the way he wants it. That this behaviour brings up resistance is normal.

So i would prefer when you say that people are against doing it the hasty way. Its not true that the ones that dont support gavin doesnt see the need of an increase. The problem is only the when and the how.

[DooMAD]

The question should be, IF Gavin is only partially invested in the Bitcoin development, should he have the Alert keys? I just know Satoshi gave the alert keys to someone he thought was trustworthy and has the best interest of Bitcoin in mind.
What would the need for such keys be, if you are not investing your time and energy into Bitcoin Core development?
If it's only for brag rights or a question of pride, just get over it and pass it on to the next person who wants to lead the Core development. 

The thing is, coding for one project doesn't automatically preclude someone from working on another.  If, hypothetically, some serious security issue was found in core tomorrow, you can bet that Gavin and the other developers would all most likely be on the case working on a fix.  Once the new code for the fix is reviewed, an alert is sent out to notify people about the update.  It doesn't really matter who sends the update.  If Gavin is still happy to do it, there's no reason why he shouldn't still be able to. 

The issue I have with this thread is that the OP is basically proposing outright censorship to protect our community (who apparently can't be trusted to think for themselves) because a developer dared to commit the (apparently egregious) crime of displaying independent thought and having a mind of their own.  The OP feels strong indignation at this supposed betrayal for reasons that still make no sense.  Despite not signing any formal contract, all core devs must agree to forego independent thought and act as a hive mind at all times and agree on everything for the rest of time.  Refusal to comply with this means you must be cast out.  At least in whatever delusional dreamworld the OP is living in, anyway. 

So basically we arrive at the situation where any time someone disagrees with the actions of a developer we have to decide whether to 'vote them out' as if this was some sort of mindless reality TV show?  It's ridiculous. 

[gmaxwell]

We don't really use the alert mechanism, and many of the contributors to Bitcoin Core would like to remove it-- because the value it provides is very low, relative to the administrative overhead we receive in terms of people justifying non-starter proposals based on it (e.g. wanting to use it to remotely control miner default behaviour) or just the cost users have in reasoning about its security implications for them.

That said, there is very little potential for abuse, because if a bogus alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system erases all other alerts and sets a static alert key compromised message. As a result, active misuse is already effectively constructively disabled.

And all without fanning any extra drama.

[SebastianJu]

We don't really use the alert mechanism, and many of the contributors to Bitcoin Core would like to remove it-- because the value it provides is very low, relative to the administrative overhead we receive in terms of people justifying non-starter proposals based on it (e.g. wanting to use it to remotely control miner default behaviour) or just the cost users have in reasoning about its security implications for them.

That said, there is very little potential for abuse, because if a bogus alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system erases all other alerts and sets a static alert key compromised message. As a result, active misuse is already effectively constructively disabled.

And all without fanning any extra drama.

Thats a good info gmaxwell. I guess a fast reaction is almost certain then.

Though i wonder if it really is so useless. Didnt it help once with the alert when accidentally a fork was happening? The results werent so impressing?

[MicroGuy]

Though i wonder if it really is so useless. Didnt it help once with the alert when accidentally a fork was happening? The results werent so impressing?

Here are the past alerts:



Basically, the person(s) with the alert key possesses the authority to instruct bitcoin users to update. So strangely, at the moment, a man that vanished 5 years ago has that authority as does a developer that has apparently broken away from core. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no remaining core dev has this key.

Rhetoric alone cannot solve this problem.

[forlackofabettername]

We don't really use the alert mechanism, and many of the contributors to Bitcoin Core would like to remove it-- because the value it provides is very low, relative to the administrative overhead we receive in terms of people justifying non-starter proposals based on it (e.g. wanting to use it to remotely control miner default behaviour) or just the cost users have in reasoning about its security implications for them.

That said, there is very little potential for abuse, because if a bogus alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system erases all other alerts and sets a static alert key compromised message. As a result, active misuse is already effectively constructively disabled.

And all without fanning any extra drama.

While this might be true the question remains why someone who actively undermines the Bitcoin network, its devteam and community needs to hold said keys.
Leaving Gavin with the keys is like saying one could leave his car unlocked in a highly criminal neighbourhood because if a thief would be taking it, the police would stop him.
You lock the car so the thief can't drive away with it regardless of possible countermeasures!

Gavin tried a hostile takeover, mind you.

We're also talking about commit access so Gavin would have to take a harder route next time he would want to propose changes. Why does he even need commit access when he would propagate software outside the orderly routes? He doesn't need commit access to propagate his alternative software.
 
He also showed already how he would not care to hurt investors confidence and cost everyone involved massive amounts of time with his controversial proposals. He further showed he is unable to do teamwork so he is likely a burden for Bitcoin and the rest of the devs. He will very likely waste more time and hurt investors confidence further.
I think it makes a great deal of sense to make it harder for him to repeat these things on this or on another issue in the future.
If everyone of the core developers would behave in the way he does there wouldn't be a bitcoin after very short time. We do not want to support devs who try powergrabs and hostile takeovers. Why should be tollerate it? Why? One single reason, give me just one!


Basically for the amount of misconduct he has been showing lately he is holding far too much authority.
Also Hearn said on 'epicenter bitcoin' show he would like Gavin to revoke commit access for the other devs (https://youtu.be/8JmvkyQyD8w?t=47m37s). I think this was an outrageous thing to say.
After we have been hearing this we do know with all certainty that Gavin definately holds too much authority over a software he actively attacked from the outside.

Gavin in my opinion has become a hazard for the productivity of the devteam and the coin itself and that's why we should think about taking keys and commit access away to prevent further issues.

Even if the alertkeys would be removed entirely Gavin would still remain a security issue and certainly cause more headache with the access that he has to github.

Again: his behaviour is unacceptable and can under no circumstances be tolerated because if we let him get away with this other devs would possibly repeat this aswelll as Gavin would too.

We can not tollerate an attemtpted hostile takeover by a core dev ever because if we would we'd certainly face more trouble later as this repeats and possibly intensifies and evolves into new directions. Gavin basically brings disorder to Bitcoin.

----------------

With all that said:

So far i can not identify new arguments or valid concerns against the proposal. Actually nobody seems to be able to justify why Gavin would need to hold the keys or have commit access.
Some people don't like the proposal but somehow almost no rational arguments were brought forward why he (and nobody else) needs to hold said keys or why he would need to have commit access.

[forlackofabettername]

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no remaining core dev has this key.

If that is true also and no other core dev holds the keys then things need certainly to change there. This can't stay this way.

[MicroGuy]

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no remaining core dev has this key.

If that is true also and no other core dev holds the keys then things need certainly to change there. This can't stay this way.

Yes. Having an active core dev with the alert key might be a good idea. It's tough to justify everyone having the key except them. lol

[croTek4]

We don't really use the alert mechanism, and many of the contributors to Bitcoin Core would like to remove it-- because the value it provides is very low, relative to the administrative overhead we receive in terms of people justifying non-starter proposals based on it (e.g. wanting to use it to remotely control miner default behaviour) or just the cost users have in reasoning about its security implications for them.

That said, there is very little potential for abuse, because if a bogus alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system erases all other alerts and sets a static alert key compromised message. As a result, active misuse is already effectively constructively disabled.

And all without fanning any extra drama.

While this might be true the question remains why someone who actively undermines the Bitcoin network, its devteam and community needs to hold said keys.
Leaving Gavin with the keys is like saying one could leave his car unlocked in a highly criminal neighbourhood because if a thief would be taking it, the police would stop him.
You lock the car so the thief can't drive away with it regardless of possible countermeasures!

Gavin tried a hostile takeover, mind you.

We're also talking about commit access so Gavin would have to take a harder route next time he would want to propose changes. Why does he even need commit access when he would propagate software outside the orderly routes? He doesn't need commit access to propagate his alternative software.
 
He also showed already how he would not care to hurt investors confidence and cost everyone involved massive amounts of time with his controversial proposals. He further showed he is unable to do teamwork so he is likely a burden for Bitcoin and the rest of the devs. He will very likely waste more time and hurt investors confidence further.
I think it makes a great deal of sense to make it harder for him to repeat these things on this or on another issue in the future.
If everyone of the core developers would behave in the way he does there wouldn't be a bitcoin after very short time. We do not want to support devs who try powergrabs and hostile takeovers. Why should be tollerate it? Why? One single reason, give me just one!


Basically for the amount of misconduct he has been showing lately he is holding far too much authority.
Also Hearn said on 'epicenter bitcoin' show he would like Gavin to revoke commit access for the other devs (https://youtu.be/8JmvkyQyD8w?t=47m37s). I think this was an outrageous thing to say.
After we have been hearing this we do know with all certainty that Gavin definately holds too much authority over a software he actively attacked from the outside.

Gavin in my opinion has become a hazard for the productivity of the devteam and the coin itself and that's why we should think about taking keys and commit access away to prevent further issues.

Even if the alertkeys would be removed entirely Gavin would still remain a security issue and certainly cause more headache with the access that he has to github.

Again: his behaviour is unacceptable and can under no circumstances be tolerated because if we let him get away with this other devs would possibly repeat this aswelll as Gavin would too.

We can not tollerate an attemtpted hostile takeover by a core dev ever because if we would we'd certainly face more trouble later as this repeats and possibly intensifies and evolves into new directions. Gavin basically brings disorder to Bitcoin.

----------------

With all that said:

So far i can not identify new arguments or valid concerns against the proposal. Actually nobody seems to be able to justify why Gavin would need to hold the keys or have commit access.
Some people don't like the proposal but somehow almost no rational arguments were brought forward why he (and nobody else) needs to hold said keys or why he would need to have commit access.

You are bringing disorder to bitcoin, stop.

[gmaxwell]

Thats a good info gmaxwell. I guess a fast reaction is almost certain then.
[...]
The results werent so impressing?

Yes, I estimate it could be corrected in under 5 minutes right now.

WRT result, the primary thing the alert does right now is triggers the error bar in Bitcoin Core and the alert notify output; which almost no one will notice. Past notices have had very little effect in general.

Basically, the person(s) with the alert key possesses the authority to instruct bitcoin users to update. So strangely, at the moment, a man that vanished 5 years ago has that authority as does a developer that has apparently broken away from core. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no remaining core dev has this key.

More or less incorrect on both counts. Yes, someone can send a message-- but that message can be disabled, locked out, and replaced with a key compromised method by anyone with the alert key.  For security reasons everyone who has the alertkey is not enumerated (so that someone can't attempt to suppress use of the alert key by targeting multiple people). Multiple people currently active in the project have the key, and there are also other security measures in place.

I hear your concerns. You're not the first or only one to express them; but I believe there is still a more professional cooperative way forward available and I think we should make use of it to the greatest extent possible.

[Kprawn]

This happens in the sport world too.... When the team performs bad, the couch is blamed. The first thing the supporters of that team wants to see, is the head of the coach to be cut.

In this situation, it seems as though the Bitcoin coach is doing some side betting against his own team by coaching for the other team.

It is just natural for people to air their views and opinions for such behaviour. You cannot coach two teams playing against each other, it's counter productive for both teams.