Why Bitcoin Core needs to die

[BNO]

In the whole debate of XT vs bitcoin core, many times the statement is made, that the blocksize should be increased but with bitcoin core. Or otherwise if XT succeeds then the bitcoin core project would then stop. This is then told as if it is a downside. For me it would be a big plus if the bitcoin core project would die out.

And here is why:

• The structure of the bitcoin core project is consensus driven to a point that it simply makes no sense. In the current structure every commiter can mark a change as "controversial" - with that it will not be implemented. Mike Hearn said that they discussed the topic of increasing block size for 3 years without coming to a solution. For me that is just nonsense. if the current structure is not able to come to a solution about a very obvious question (of course you need to increase block size at a certain point in time) then you have to abandon it. I think a consensus driven culture to the point that EVERY commiter has a defacto veto is very naive. Large communities are not run by consensus, but by majority vote. In existing democracies you never get close to even 90% of the voters. Important decisions are made all the time with 51% approval.  
• Usually open source projects are managed in a way that there is one "chief" maintainer (think of him as the boss) who is giving direction and the others follow than this vision. Take Linux for example Linus torwald clearly steered Linux more in the direction he wanted to have it than all the others together. This is not bad actually but healthy. If one has a vision of fire and the other has a vision of ice you can not average that. In technical aspects it makes in many cases absolutely no sense to meet "half way" because thats not feasible - not funtioning. In fact some of the worst decisions in political systems were made because of making consensus were one shouldn't have made it just its technically not feasible.
• Very unappealing about the new programmers at bitcoin core is that they simply do not want to consent to the unavoidable is simply because the are with blockstream and got 21 Mio of Venture cap. The slower the bitcoin network the better for their solution blockstream. So in other words they exploit a flaw in the culture of bitcoin core (to consensus driven) to achieve personal gains.
  
• Approxmately 75% of the users are in favor of an increase in blocksize. So another really ugly quesition for bitcoin core arises with these 21 mio $. This sum has been apparantly enough for the new programmers in Bitcoin core to ignore the wishes of the absolute majority of the users. The users are bitcoin! Even before the programmers or the nodes, without users there is no point in an payment solution.
  

So in this way XT is much more than just an increase in blocksize, but an long needed reform of culture of bitcoin core project. Bitcoin XT wants to achieve 3 things (according to website):

• making bitcoin scalable
• The principle that users matter, not only programmers
• pragmatic community

So maybe this post helps some to see clearer why its true that mike hearn and gavin want to establish a development team which is more  hierarchically organized but why this is not bad but needed. And by the way: the consesus vote of 5 programmers from which 3 have been strait out bought by a company is not democracy at all...

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.

[BNO]

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.

But every person with committer access, can make some noise in the community get some people behind (you can always some few people behind anything) and then mark a change as controversial. With a change marked controversiol it will not be applied. That's how it is now...

[ashour]

I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.

[BNO]

I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.

Yeah you know what: the raftsmen were very decentralized too - and due to techical evolution they are long gone.
Beeing "decentralized" does not mean that you can stop to evolve and to become better over time....

[knight22]

I agree. Ultimately, the market should decide what implementation it wants to uses that fit best its needs. If a group a developers fail to deliver something that will reach a real consensus, the market should be free to opt out. It adds a lot more resilience to the whole system.

[Mr.jatt]

But right now we are not ready for XT, I mean that this software is made in a hurry and no one knows what Gavin is hiding behind his code. And it will also make Bitcoin centralized.

[ashour]

I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.

Yeah you know what: the raftsmen were very decentralized too - and due to techical evolution they are long gone.
Beeing "decentralized" does not mean that you can stop to evolve and to become better over time....

I agree but if people can change the bitcoin core, then its not decentralized anymore. As you said 3 of 5 bitcoin core developers are bought out from a company , and they will do what the company tells them to. They will change the bitcoin core so the company benefits and not the bitcoin community. We should remove any right to change or modify the bitcoin protocol from one or more people.

[DooMAD]

While I'd agree with some of the points made (particularly the principle that users matter, not only programmers), I can't help but think the overall conclusion is a little too simplistic.  All proposals on how to run the network should be weighed on their pros and cons.  It's not really fair to paint the picture that everything about Core is a negative.  That's no better than what some are saying about XT.  Neither proposal "needs to die" and both have their potential drawbacks, but the network will ultimately decide which chain to follow.  But at the risk of complicating matters further, the two proposals we currently have aren't the only possible outcomes.

A fairer and more neutral appraisal of the situation is that certain developers have strong ideological differences, which is what lead to the alternative client being made.  There's no real "right" or "wrong" way to run a development team and one isn't somehow inherently "better" than the other, but if a group of developers can't agree, there's nothing wrong with said team splitting into separate camps and submitting their own proposals on how the network should be run.  That's precisely what happened here and there's nothing wrong with that.  It wouldn't matter if there are two separate development teams or twenty and it also wouldn't matter if some teams resembled a dictatorship while others looked like a hippy commune.  The more options we have, the easier it should be to reach a compromise.  The only thing that really matters is the users securing the blockchain can run the code they agree with and the longest chain decides the outcome.  

So forget the personalities involved.  Forget what the names of the clients are.  Forget how the development teams are organised.  We're placing too much emphasis on that.  Focus instead on which proposal would result in what you believe is the best outcome for Bitcoin.  If you're somewhere in the middle and don't agree with either proposal, either get coding, or get in contact with someone who can code and get them to create a proposal you do agree with.  

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

[BNO]

So forget the personalities involved.  Forget what the names of the clients are.  Forget how the development teams are organised.  We're placing too much emphasis on that.

I agree with many things you say and i feel that its to much about personalities either. What i totally disagree is that we are placing to much emphasis on how the team is organized. For me that is one of the most underdiscussed topics at all. You can NOT run (sportsteam, company, whatever project) with a 100% consensus- culture. That is a recipe for disaster.

[DooMAD]

So forget the personalities involved.  Forget what the names of the clients are.  Forget how the development teams are organised.  We're placing too much emphasis on that.

I agree with many things you say and i feel that its to much about personalities either. What i totally disagree is that we are placing to much emphasis on how the team is organized. For me that is one of the most underdiscussed topics at all. You can NOT run (sportsteam, company, whatever project) with a 100% consensus- culture. That is a recipe for disaster.

You can certainly try to run with 100% consensus, but clearly all it leads to is a split when someone does eventually disagree.  Such a split isn't a disaster (despite how the community seem to be reacting to it).  It just means we now get a choice we wouldn't have otherwise had.  

If devteam "A" have a group leader who makes all the decisions, we only get one client.

If devteam "A" have 100% consensus and all the devs agree, we only get one client.

If devteam "A" have 100% consensus but can't all agree, we get devteam "B" and two clients.

So in effect, a split can be a good thing, which is what happened here.  Now we have a choice.  Choice is good (although apparently controversial).  That's why it doesn't matter how development teams are organised.  The important thing is that the proposal gets created and we get to choose which code to run.  It's possible that the two current proposals we have don't cover the myriad of views expressed on this issue, so we may need a few more options to choose from.

[Delek]

RIP Bitcoin 2009 - 2015

Christ, this post is beautiful. <3


Btw, running Satoshi 0.11.0, XT can cry in the corner, we don't care.

[Peter R]

This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies:




Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

[MoorChael]

I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.

Yeah you know what: the raftsmen were very decentralized too - and due to techical evolution they are long gone.
Beeing "decentralized" does not mean that you can stop to evolve and to become better over time....

I agree but if people can change the bitcoin core, then its not decentralized anymore. As you said 3 of 5 bitcoin core developers are bought out from a company , and they will do what the company tells them to. They will change the bitcoin core so the company benefits and not the bitcoin community. We should remove any right to change or modify the bitcoin protocol from one or more people.

I agree needs stability and more centralization. People will be satisfied and only increase the number of users

[achow101]

This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies:




Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT.

[slaveforanunnak1]

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

[Peter R]

I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT.

Agreed!  I'd like to see the Core Team create a branch that includes BIP101; let their user base decide which to run.

[knight22]

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

[slaveforanunnak1]

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

we are clearly looking at two completely different things.