If you want to know why I hate the dev team and how they treat Bitcoin...

[JoelKatz]

Atlas hates the dev team because they're not getting enough done and they're not responsive enough to the community's priorities. That's why he opposes their effort to get more development resources and initiate a better process to assess the community's priorities.

[TheBible]

Then you should help out, or fork your own branch.  Sorry, it's open source, the devs can do what they like, and if you lack the knowledge to stop them, its your own problem.  That's the Free Market for you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the necessary skills, hire someone to do it for you.

[ElectricMucus]

Then you should help out, or fork your own branch.  Sorry, it's open source, the devs can do what they like, and if you lack the knowledge to stop them, its your own problem.  That's the Free Market for you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the necessary skills, hire someone to do it for you.

Pay attention to this post Atlas!

[Transisto]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/10wlva/so_how_long_until_the_bitcoinqt_diskio_tipping/

It's shit like this. They want every user to be a verifying node regardless of their technical proficiency and what the end user wants out of Bitcoin.

When a user complains about the program using excess resources while being verifying node, the devs and some others often strikeback with a sense of entitlement "You should help out. If you don't like it, leave. Come back when the tech is better."

The tech IS better guys. There are thin clients and ewallets that resolve this but you deride them and continue to work on a vision of software nobody wants. It's rather limiting for Bitcoin as a whole. Can you imagine how many people have dumped Bitcoin because Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind continues to be a slow, overburdened pain in the ass?

It's very clear: This desktop-based vision for Bitcoin is one of Autism and general lack of ingenuity.

Please Atlas learn no make descriptive title, You sound like nothing more than an attention whore.

Your new topics take for granted we care to fill the blanks in your incomplete version of reality.

If you want to know why I hate the dev team and how they treat Bitcoin

Should be ...

Dev team and how they treat ... WHAT SPECIFICALLY ...

[acoindr]

Then you should help out, or fork your own branch.  Sorry, it's open source, the devs can do what they like, and if you lack the knowledge to stop them, its your own problem.  That's the Free Market for you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the necessary skills, hire someone to do it for you.

Not that I disagree, but also note competing against a popular branch is an uphill, likely losing battle because of resources dedicated to it. That's largely the fear against power consolidation with a Bitcoin Foundation. Often it's more effective to fight for changes than go off alone.

[TheBible]

Two more thoughts, Atlas.

First, I find it ironic you're so upset about the devs making you run code you don't want when you yourself ran a covert javascript app to mine bitcoins without user permission.

Second, you're a Randian, yet you want to use the bitcoin network with a client that doesn't help maintain it?  You want to profit off the work of others without giving anything back.  That's not very libertarian, now is it?

Of course, you've made it quite clear before that you are held to a different system of morals than everyone else.  Funny how when the devs do something you don't like, you cry about community, but when you do something similar, its ok because it benefits you and everyone should just accept that.

You are such a fucking sponge; the fact that the admins let you back on here is a testament to bitcoin's terminal ability to rid itself of damaging elements.

[Atlas]

Second, you're a Randian, yet you want to use the bitcoin network with a client that doesn't help maintain it?  You want to profit off the work of others without giving anything back.  

Transaction fees.

[TheBible]

Then you should help out, or fork your own branch.  Sorry, it's open source, the devs can do what they like, and if you lack the knowledge to stop them, its your own problem.  That's the Free Market for you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the necessary skills, hire someone to do it for you.

Not that I disagree, but also note competing against a popular branch is an uphill, likely losing battle because of resources dedicated to it. That's largely the fear against power consolidation with a Bitcoin Foundation. Often it's more effective to fight for changes than go off alone.

Huh, its almost like Free Market philosophy is fundamentally flawed, and without regulation, the biggest and richest entities will always hold absolute power.

[TheBible]

Here, for your edification, I'll just crosspost what Atlas is basically advocating for here

It is beautiful that people in that thread want a client that doesn't contribute to maintaining the network. According to libertarians people who live off the hard work of others while contributing nothing themselves are leeches. Atlas and pals don't want a "light client" they want a "leech client".

It is going to be a train wreck either way.

The current client is a huge turnoff to curious newbies -- you download the thing and then spend hours or days downloading the block chain. That is a problem when you expect a couple billion newbies to join the network in the next few years.

If you create a leech client, then most people will opt to be leeches, leaving only dedicated miners running the full client. As the difficulty rises and the rewards shrink, more and more small miners will drop out. Eventually most of the nodes will be concentrated in the hands of a very few people with expensive ASIC rigs. That undermines the whole structure of Bitcoin. The rules can be changed if the majority of nodes agree. People who have invested heavily in mining want to keep mining forever, it is not in their best interest for mining to stop at 21 million coins. Yeah, transaction fees are supposed to take over for mining rewards at that point, but the few people running very powerful nodes may decide they want transaction fees AND rewards.

Then again, maybe he'll defeat mathematical reality with The Power of Positive Thinking.

[capn noe]

Atlas, why is your 'Ignore' link highlighted?

 

Everybody with a controversial posting style or the ability to form ones own opinion here has that. I consider it honorable  

You've got it too!

The world is MAD!

[TheBible]

Atlas, why is your 'Ignore' link highlighted?

 

It is simply so good an idea that the forums software itself has evolved the ability to communicate it to you.

[ElectricMucus]

Atlas, why is your 'Ignore' link highlighted?

 

Everybody with a controversial posting style or the ability to form ones own opinion here has that. I consider it honorable  

[acoindr]

Then you should help out, or fork your own branch.  Sorry, it's open source, the devs can do what they like, and if you lack the knowledge to stop them, its your own problem.  That's the Free Market for you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the necessary skills, hire someone to do it for you.

Not that I disagree, but also note competing against a popular branch is an uphill, likely losing battle because of resources dedicated to it. That's largely the fear against power consolidation with a Bitcoin Foundation. Often it's more effective to fight for changes than go off alone.

Huh, its almost like Free Market philosophy is fundamentally flawed, and without regulation, the biggest and richest entities will always hold absolute power.

Well, I wouldn't say fundamentally flawed, but the purest free market without regulation would be uneven at times in places.

[ElectricMucus]

Second, you're a Randian, yet you want to use the bitcoin network with a client that doesn't help maintain it?  You want to profit off the work of others without giving anything back.  

Transaction fees.

At the moment those don't even cover the resources required to store the blockchain. The are artificially suppressed.  That's the one thing I'd put up to the software developers.

If there were a free market mechanism for transaction fees they would be much higher. But then if they allow that that could spread to other things, like the hardcoded block reward reduction or even a storage fee (essentially demurrage).
All of those are ideological top down decisions which could be instead be decided democratically by the proof of work mechanism.

But I think you share their ideological decisions you only complain about things which affect your own profits which makes you a hypocrite.  

[Atlas]

We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.

It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.

[ElectricMucus]

We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.

It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.

No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public.
Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds). 

[Atlas]

We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.

It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.

No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public.
Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds). 

Mmmm, I think people's transactions not going through would be a significant message. Maybe the fees are in the right place?

[ElectricMucus]

We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.

It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.

No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public.
Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds).  

Mmmm, I think people's transactions not going through would be a significant message. Maybe the fees are in the right place?

Subsidized miners (those who operate some scheme on GLBSE) will accept even zero fee transactions.
Added to that pool operators block the free market mechanism from operating.

[Atlas]

We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.

It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.

No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public.
Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds). 

Mmmm, I think people's transactions not going through would be a significant message. Maybe the fees are in the right place?

Subsidized miners (those who operate some scheme on GLBSE) will accept even zero fee transactions.
Added to that pool operators block the free market mechanism from operating.

So, lower costs are a problem?

I really don't see the network in trouble right now. There is still choice in nodes.

[ElectricMucus]

What is needed is a mechanism for miners to announce their demands in their mined blocks, which has to work across pools. It's fairly straight forward to implement but it won't be done because of above issues.

Lets wait for the collapse of the GLBSE mining bond bubble (watch the difficulty!) then we will see what happens.