The Real Problem isn't XT...

[RawDog]

The real problem isn't XT.  The real problem is that there is no good means to break a serious impasse. 

XT is a tiny problem - many alternatives exist to get bitcoin to scale.  But XT taught us one thing, Bitcoin is extremely fragile when the core devs can't naturally reach agreement in conversation. 

This XT thing will soon blow over and with or without a fork - Bitcoin will go on in good shape. But, someone ought to start thinking about the next thing which will cause a division.  A division which gets a real durable 50%/50% opinion going will destroy Bitcoin I think. 

XT is probably going to win this argument in about 1 hour after the hard fork.  The next round of disagreement probably won't end up the same way. 

We really need Satoshi to sign a tie-breaking message once in a while.  He is a real coward for checking out like he did.  jk

Hey Sato - how about giving the community a little guidance -  eh?  Just a little 'pip' once in a while.  How about if you sign a '1' for yes on XT or a '0' for no on XT?  That would sure help.  Now that Mike invoked your name, it really does fall on you. 

[smoothie]

Satoshi would have weighed in if he thought he should.

I think we wants to see if Bitcoin will succeed without his intervention.

Just like Charles Lee for Litecoin, bitcoin should be able to stand on its own two feet without its founder.

Truly decentralized.

[DannyHamilton]

Satoshi almost certainly died a few years ago.

Regardless, I really don't understand why people care what he would think anyhow.

If you knew who first created the hammer, would you care what his opinion is about how you want to use one?

If you knew who first created the wheel, would you care whether or not they want you to use the wheel on your new method of transportation?

[Harry Hood]

Satoshi would have weighed in if he thought he should.

Maybe "he" has weighed in.

Do you really think that Satoshi would keep his voice out of this? And if so, do you think he could voice his opinion under the moniker "Satoshi" and maintain any sense of normalcy in his/her life? I doubt it. It's much more plausible that Satoshi is active among us and operating under a different name.

It's the way it should be...it's the way I'd do it.

[AgentofCoin]

...
Regardless, I really don't understand why people care what he would think anyhow.

He is the only person that when voicing his opinion in this matter, could actually be considered unbiased,
since he was the creator and in theory would make the best choice for Bitcoin/bitcoin, and not for himself.

His decision in this matter, if 100% verified to be him, would end the debate immediately, IMO.

But, as I have said many times, I believe he is no longer living as well.

[spazzdla]

...
Regardless, I really don't understand why people care what he would think anyhow.

He is the only person that when voicing his opinion in this matter, could actually be considered unbiased,
since he was the creator and in theory would make the best choice for Bitcoin/bitcoin, and not for himself.

His decision in this matter, if 100% verified to be him, would end the debate immediately, IMO.

But, as I have said many times, I believe he is no longer living as well.

One man should never have that much power.

Satoshi comes off as a brilliant man, women or group.  They will never return, their opinion is now regarded as gods opinion.. such power is bad.

Satoshi created bitcoin for the people, Satoshi can no longer be involved, Bitcoin cannot have one person/group that decides it's future.

[DooMAD]

The real problem isn't XT.  The real problem is that there is no good means to break a serious impasse.  

XT is a tiny problem - many alternatives exist to get bitcoin to scale.  But XT taught us one thing, Bitcoin is extremely fragile when the core devs can't naturally reach agreement in conversation.

It's not Bitcoin that's fragile per se, just the current prevailing, yet warped, concept of open-source that makes it appear so.  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.  It's actually quite beautiful and I can't wait for the rest of the world to catch on.  If politics and governance works in a similar fashion at some point in the future, we might have something that actually resembles the democracy we are supposedly meant to live in.

[spazzdla]

The real problem isn't XT.  The real problem is that there is no good means to break a serious impasse.  

XT is a tiny problem - many alternatives exist to get bitcoin to scale.  But XT taught us one thing, Bitcoin is extremely fragile when the core devs can't naturally reach agreement in conversation.

It's not Bitcoin that's fragile per se, just the current prevailing, yet warped, concept of open-source that makes it appear so.  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.  It's actually quite beautiful and I can't wait for the rest of the world to catch on.  If politics and governance works in a similar fashion at some point in the future, we might have something that actually resembles the democracy we are supposedly meant to live in.

This right here is why I believe we will never hear from Satoshi again, Satoshi's point of view will override everyone else at this point.  No matter his purposal, no man should have that type of power.

I believe Satoshi also believes this thus will never be heard from again. At least not as Satoshi.

[AgentofCoin]

...
Regardless, I really don't understand why people care what he would think anyhow.

He is the only person that when voicing his opinion in this matter, could actually be considered unbiased,
since he was the creator and in theory would make the best choice for Bitcoin/bitcoin, and not for himself.

His decision in this matter, if 100% verified to be him, would end the debate immediately, IMO.

But, as I have said many times, I believe he is no longer living as well.

One man should never have that much power.

Satoshi comes off as a brilliant man, women or group.  They will never return, their opinion is now regarded as gods opinion.. such power is bad.

Satoshi created bitcoin for the people, Satoshi can no longer be involved, Bitcoin cannot have one person/group that decides it's future.

I agree with you. I was just responding to DannyHamilton's statement.
Many users would want this whole situation to be resolved amicability and for the good of the system,
but only Satoshi's single word could actually do that.
Since that is very likely not to happen for many different reasons, including what you stated above,
we are all going to spin in circles until something bad happens.

[mindrust]

I wish I knew What the hell XT is, so i would have had a clue about the drama going on nowadays.

All I know is, there are some miners decided to fuck the original bitcoin up. (may not be true, that is my impression about the subject)

[DannyHamilton]

I wish I knew . . .

Do you really wish you knew?

If so, contact me, and I'll explain it all to you.

However, I suspect that's just a rhetorical statement made solely for the purposes of getting enough posts for your sig ad campaign, and that you really don't care enough about it to put in any time or effort to learn.

[ashour]

Satoshi would have weighed in if he thought he should.

I think we wants to see if Bitcoin will succeed without his intervention.

Just like Charles Lee for Litecoin, bitcoin should be able to stand on its own two feet without its founder.

Truly decentralized.

I agree, Satoshi wanted bitcoin to succeed on it own, without needing a central person or organization and that is decentralization.

[NorrisK]

There will always be people for a choice and people against it.. Heck, look in the politics of your country.. Nobody will ever have a majority of the votes, simply because that is not how humans work...

[RawDog]

Regardless, I really don't understand why people care what he would think anyhow.

If you knew who first created the hammer, would you care what his opinion is about how you want to use one?

If you knew who first created the wheel, would you care whether or not they want you to use the wheel on your new method of transportation?

I care what he would think because the guy had pretty decent insights when it comes to cryptocurrency.  I could give a shit what he thinks about how to use a hammer.  I don't think he is god, but he certainly did have some appreciable thought on this topic. 

Look - today we have no good solution for deciding an impasse.  A fucking hard fork is pretty dumb.  But that is what we are going to use to settle it.  We could flip a coin.  Or, we could let a guy who had some nice organized thinking on the topic send us a blessed message (signed of course) and go with that.

So, Danny-boy, which do you prefer: hard fork, coin toss, or a signed bit from our mutual buddy ol' Sato?

[turvarya]

Sorry to hurt your beliefs, but I don't think Satoshi is THE expert anymore on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has grown since he left, being it the code base or the adoption. I am also sure, that is what he wanted, when he left.

[RawDog]

Sorry to hurt your beliefs, but I don't think Satoshi is THE expert anymore on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has grown since he left, being it the code base or the adoption. I am also sure, that is what he wanted, when he left.

Sorry to hurt your beliefs, but I don't believe that.

Who holds the belief that Satoshi is THE expert?  Not me.  I am just saying I'd trust his tie break vote more than a coin toss.  ...or Mike's hard fork.  

Look, here is the deal.  We don't have a conflict resolution scheme.  When we set down the path to resolve an impasse - we are forced to do a hard fork.  Oh fuck.  That is not good.  For now, I'd let a signed message from Satoshi decide.  Then, start working on a new voting system which would let impasses get settled without walking near the cliff that hard forks are.  

[turvarya]

Sorry to hurt your beliefs, but I don't think Satoshi is THE expert anymore on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has grown since he left, being it the code base or the adoption. I am also sure, that is what he wanted, when he left.

Sorry to hurt your beliefs, but I don't believe that.

Who holds the belief that Satoshi is THE expert?  Not me.  I am just saying I'd trust his tie break vote more than a coin toss.  ...or Mike's hard fork.  

Look, here is the deal.  We don't have a conflict resolution scheme.  When we set down the path to resolve an impasse - we are forced to do a hard fork.  Oh fuck.  That is not good.  For now, I'd let a signed message from Satoshi decide.  Then, start working on a new voting system which would let impasses get settled without walking near the cliff that hard forks are.  

If you want Satoshi to decide, means you hold his word over every other. In my book, that means you think, that he is THE expert, regardless of if you want it just for this conflict.
It also seems to me, that you don't know, what a hardfork is. There already where hard forks. There even was a hard fork about a month ago: BIP 66, which let to some problems

[Mickeyb]

I believe that Bitcoin will beat this division, but I am also worried as you are about the future problems, and future possible divisions. And there will be problems since Bitcoin is very young and need to progress a lot.

This is honestly a huge question for me, if we are stuck at this little stream, how will we cross future bigger streams.

I am also afraid that Bitcoin has grown too big and that is paying and paying big time its decentralization nature, people are just having hard time to agree.

Oh well, only time will tell!

[BTC_ISTANBUL]

I think Satoshi and Variety Jones is the same guy and had passed away.The problem is not whether he is alive or not.Sato has completed his mission.If BTC needs to be decentralized.If this will have a cost we have to pay it.Otherwise the BTC will self terminate.Situation is that serious.

[johnyj]

Bitcoin has no problem, it is some of the dev's mindset having problem: They don't want to look at the big picture and try to reach over 90% consensus as much as possible (by making some compromise), instead they insist on their own view and try to politicize the change and split the community. Luckily, bitcoin is totally free to participate, every non-sheeple would use their own brain to make a choice