Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[brg444]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

[1714482273]

1714482273

[1714482273]

1714482273

[1714482273]

1714482273

[1714482273]

1714482273

[tvbcof]

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

I considered creating a new sock-puppet name "Leonid Trolstoy" the other day.  Ultimately I almost never use the sock puppets I have so it was not worth the bother.

[knight22]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

Speaking about authoritarianism, you don't seem to give a bat about being under the authority of Core devs no matter what they could decide. Pardon me but I fail to see your logic.

[brg444]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

Speaking about authoritarianism, you don't seem to give a bat about being under the authority of Core devs no matter what they could decide. Pardon me but I fail to see your logic.

I am not under the authority of any core dev but their historically reliable consensus development process. Its track record speaks for itself, having successfully ousted generally bad or harmful ideas out of contention for a push into the consensus code.

On the other hand you're trying to sell us into a top-down, outright authoritarian leadership of the development process  I know which one sits right with me and which one doesn't.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anit-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core. 

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too. 

I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.

That's a good stand!

@Peter: I am not saying you shouldn't support XT, I am saying some of your posts which essentially is for showing support to XT seems a bit stupid and you don't strike me as a stupid to me.

P.S. Before supporting any clients, make sure it is safe by checking source codes thoroughly.

* Edited.

[Lauda]

That's a good stand!

@Peter: I am not saying you shouldn't support XT, I am saying some of your posts which essentially is for showing support to XT seems a bit stupid and you don't strike me as a stupid to me.

P.S. Before supporting any clients, make sure it is safe by checking source codes thoroughly.

I agree, however what a group of people was doing is against the rules. Actually the staff let you guys off easy. Instead of punishing everyone for repetitive behavior (i.e. breaking the rule multiple times) they have decided to lock the thread. This is also off topic for this thread, and yet people are lucky (incl. me) that nobody is being punished for this behavior.

I considered creating a new sock-puppet name "Leonid Trolstoy" the other day.  Ultimately I almost never use the sock puppets I have so it was not worth the bother.

Please don't. The whole block size debate and now the 'blockstream is bad' debate has had enough of those. People need to cool down. Less threads need to be opened, and discussions should be focused in the appropriate threads.

[brg444]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anti-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

Peter, the way you're biting every worm Hearn casts toward you is very disturbing.

This newly created issue of "developer centralization" is completely disingenuous and grounded in plain ignorance. Of course I am especially tired of seeing you rehashing the same tired concern (I imagine that's how GMax felt when you kept publicly supporting the false and misguiding conclusions of your paper) so allow me to quote myself again.

You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[brg444]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

[jonald_fyookball]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

[knight22]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

Maybe but I don't see why it couldn't change.

[cypherdoc]

This is the old myth that the devs are who shape Bitcoin, rather than the market. They think that without their wise guidance, investors would be lost in the woods. Dev input is taken into account by investors, but not just that of the Core devs or Core committers.


Gmax even seems to believe - as the unstated logical endpoint of some of his reasoning - that without Core committers' veto power, soon the market would go wild and lift the 21M coin limit, too! This shows a total misunderstanding of the implications of Bitcoin being open source. Some big investors could bid up BTC in a fork where the 21M limit was removed, and make it worth more than Bitcoin - at least temporarily - if they have deep enough pockets, but unless that change somehow turned out to be value-enhancing, that fork would eventually fall in price and be eclipsed by classic Bitcoin again.


For the same reasons, investors will not support a fork that results in centralization. Or even if some investors do, there will be plenty that won't and the rest of us can just ignore the ill-fated fork. In fact, with all forks being on the market, anyone astute stands to make big money trading these forks, selling their coins in the value-damaging forks and buying coins in the most value-enhancing one (which will almost certainly be the one that doesn't change the crucial parameters, of course (if you think small blocksize caps really are crucial, go ahead and make your money by selling off your coins in the bigger block forks)). This will ensure that the full wisdom of the community is marshalled toward determining the most valuable changes. Like how a prediction market distills the wisdom of crowds in such a strikingly effective manner.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

[brg444]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

[jonald_fyookball]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

If you can't explain your reasoning, you fail.  Are you afraid I might see a flaw in your logic?

Yes, there must be the rule set which all participants must agree on (that's what consensus means).
It doesn't necessarily imply there must only be one centralized code repository.

[Iman E. Vilsok]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

---

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

---

Oh, I almost forgot:  Could you ask ~justusranvier to come back out of hiding at the next strategy con-call?  We lovers of lulz would appreciate it.  He probably feels that he has 'burnt his books', but I am sure that there are a lot more newbies and simps out there who would be amenable to his brand of shtick.

edit: quotes

[brg444]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

Maybe but I don't see why it couldn't change.

It could! And I'm not against it but this is an especially hard problem because the pool of people competent enough to handle these consensus critical code is very, very small. To quote:

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[knight22]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

---

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

---

Oh, I almost forgot:  Could you ask ~justusranvier to come back out of hiding at the next strategy con-call?  We lovers of lulz would appreciate it.  He probably feels that he has 'burnt his books', but I am sure that there are a lot more newbies and simps out there who would be amenable to his brand of shtick.

Are you trying to formulate an argument? Because I don't see any.

[Iman E. Vilsok]

Are you trying to formulate an argument? Because I don't see any.

Nope.  You don't see it because there is none there.  How very perceptive you are!

[brg444]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

If you can't explain your reasoning, you fail.  Are you afraid I might see a flaw in your logic?

Yes, there must be the rule set which all participants must agree on (that's what consensus means).
It doesn't necessarily imply there must only be one centralized code repository.

Indeed, that's not what this means.

What I'm referring to here is what the core devs has been working on, the libconsensus. The consensus critical code: the "rule set which all participants must agree on". Historically this code has been maintained and updated by a sole consensus of developers for very obvious reasons.

Now this does not suggest others are not free to create their own implementation using this consensus code but the danger is that an irresponsible change to this code, which has to be unique and the same for ALL implementation, can cause very important damage to the network.

[cypherdoc]

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

[jonald_fyookball]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.