Bitcoin doesn't need governance: Bitcoin is governance.

[hdbuck]

it could be better for bitcoin if got some surveillance from central states or countries or governments will be more accepted and less terrorist crime connected as decentralized it  is now its just a way of money too but not very fantastic into the beauty of it sometimes the number its good but the ideological dependence or independence its too much

lol because banks and centralized govs do not already fund most of terrorism globally, with fiat, suitcases and hidden accounts in tax havens..

so sry but gtfo with your statist fud.

bitcoin is perfect. bitcoin is freedom. bitcoin is governance. bitcoin is us. bitcoin is ours.

[1714812509]

1714812509

[1714812509]

1714812509

[1714812509]

1714812509

[1714812509]

1714812509

[1714812509]

1714812509

[Hazir]

There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show.

Merchants are only irrevelant for now because their position in current bitcoin economy is not strong.
I can foresee, in the future as they grow in numbers and bitcoin will change its status from investment/method asset to currency - power will shift to their side.

[hdbuck]

There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show.

Merchants are only irrevelant for now because their position in current bitcoin economy is not strong.
I can foresee, in the future as they grow in numbers and bitcoin will change its status from investment/method asset to currency - power will shift to their side.

yea, still waiting for the "mass" tho.

havent even seen them wall street boys with their "blockchain technology". ^^

so guess its just the wind talking here.

[Kprawn]

There is no restriction on anyone, on if they can run their own full node and how many they can run... So governance is still in the hands of the users... they just need to decide on what they want to run.

The miners have a bigger incentive to run a full node, so they will do it for the financial gain and not the principle to secure the network.

If you want to have a say... startup a full node and make a difference on how you want to be governed. {Let's just hope it's not a dictator}  Just had to sneak it in there...   

[Amph]

apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free

there is no real consensus

 

Where did you get this idea from?

i've applied logic, they have more power than a bunch of a guys running a full node, and since there are even less people running a full node than miners and merchants, you have the result...

There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show.

how merchants are irrelevant they are the one that are helping more the growing of bitcoin, without them people would not use bitcoin as a currency at all and only as investment


they are far from irrelevant, the only irrelevant people here are we, who run a full node

[brg444]

apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free

there is no real consensus

 

Where did you get this idea from?

i've applied logic, they have more power than a bunch of a guys running a full node, and since there are even less people running a full node than miners and merchants, you have the result...

There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show.

how merchants are irrelevant they are the pne that are helòping more the growing of bitcoin, without them people would not use bitcoin as a currency at all and only as investments

they are far from irrelevant, the only irrelevant people here are we, who run a full node

That's what people ought to do. If we're being honest Bitcoin really sucks as a retail currency at the moment.

Moreover most merchants sell the BTC they receive for fiat right away which necessarily does not help growth of Bitcoin.

The hoarders are the champions!

[mallard]

Merchants are irrelevant.

Without merchants and traders, miners are nothing because the coin would be worthless.

[brg444]

Merchants are irrelevant.

Without merchants and traders, miners are nothing because the coin would be worthless.

There is a large distinction to be made between merchants, exchanges, traders.

The last two carry some weight. Merchants are indeed irrelevant

[$pliff]

Merchants are irrelevant.

Without merchants and traders, miners are nothing because the coin would be worthless.

Not true. Coins still had value before merchants got involved, though I agree we need merchants for  bitcoin to become a worthwhile currency.

[DooMAD]

As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.

I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  

I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end.

Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on.

I really wonder when this notion that you can invest in an open source coin and then expect no one to ever touch it will end. 

Seriously, how can you not see the absurdity of your demands?  You chose an investment that's open source, but you genuinely believe no one is allowed to alter the code and propose a fork?  Herpderp.  If you want "consensus" that can never be "attacked" in such a fashion, go invest in a closed source coin where you can enforce whatever rules you want.  That's what you should have done from the start.  Choose your next investment more carefully.

[brg444]

As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.

I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  

I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end.

Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on.

I really wonder when this notion that you can invest in an open source coin and then expect no one to ever touch it will end. 

Seriously, how can you not see the absurdity of your demands?  You chose an investment that's open source, but you genuinely believe no one is allowed to alter the code and propose a fork?  Herpderp.  If you want "consensus" that can never be "attacked" in such a fashion, go invest in a closed source coin where you can enforce whatever rules you want.  That's what you should have done from the start.  Choose your next investment more carefully.

You strawman is only worth a copy/paste

You suffer from the same sick tendency to build strawmen suggesting we are somehow against permissionless innovation instead of understanding and recognizing our arguments. To quote:

What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.

That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.

[DooMAD]

As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.

I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  

I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end.

Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on.

I really wonder when this notion that you can invest in an open source coin and then expect no one to ever touch it will end.  

Seriously, how can you not see the absurdity of your demands?  You chose an investment that's open source, but you genuinely believe no one is allowed to alter the code and propose a fork?  Herpderp.  If you want "consensus" that can never be "attacked" in such a fashion, go invest in a closed source coin where you can enforce whatever rules you want.  That's what you should have done from the start.  Choose your next investment more carefully.

You strawman is only worth a copy/paste

You suffer from the same sick tendency to build strawmen suggesting we are somehow against permissionless innovation instead of understanding and recognizing our arguments. To quote:

What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.

That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.

So are you saying that you don't see any fork proposal as an attack, just Gavin's?  Are you happy with other proposals to increase the blocksize?  Because that doesn't sound like the arguments you keep presenting.  The argument I keep hearing is that any increase to blocksize is an attack.  If that's not the impression you wanted me to get, you'll have to be more clear on your intent in future.  The code will stand on its own, but so will the alternative proposals.  If you chose an open source coin, you have to accept the possibility that one of those alternatives will be chosen.  The pressure for larger blocks isn't going away, so sooner or later, an agreement will be reached that incorporates support for larger blocks.  Is that a problem for you?

[brg444]

So are you saying that you don't see any fork proposal as an attack, just Gavin's?  Are you happy with other proposals to increase the blocksize?  Because that doesn't sound like the arguments you keep presenting.  The argument I keep hearing is that any increase to blocksize is an attack.  If that's not the impression you wanted me to get, you'll have to be more clear on your intent in future.  The code will stand on its own, but so will the alternative proposals.  If you chose an open source coin, you have to accept the possibility that one of those alternatives will be chosen.  The pressure for larger blocks isn't going away, so sooner or later, an agreement will be reached that incorporates support for larger blocks.  Is that a problem for you?

Of course I don't see any fork proposal as an attack. Am I happy with other proposals? I will reserve my judgment for now since most of them are incomplete.

My intent as been clear from day one: to denounce the XT fraud (& its BIP101 bastard)

Am I against a precipitated increase? Absolutely. The urgency was engineered from day one by these traitors.

[hdbuck]

Am I against a precipitated increase? Absolutely. The urgency was engineered from day one by these traitors.

Ergo the real but silent CONSENSUS, and no matter how many hours of their useless lives noobs, trolls and shills try to push the statist agenda with their whining and their fud over here, reddit, and the internet in general.

What can kill bitcoin makes us stronger.

I expect some firework with bitcoin price once them usurpers clears the way, or even better if they indeed ph0rk and take most retards out of the one and only valid chain.


~bitcoin is freedom. bitcoin is governance. bitcoin is us. bitcoin is ours.

[jonald_fyookball]

As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.

I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  

I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end.

Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on.

You do realize you can't have it both ways, right?

You either accept that consensus is defacto based on what code people chose to run,
thus invalidating the argument that any fork is a hijack, as you put it...

...or you accept the need for governance, leadership, and trusted authority.

 In the beginning, when Satoshi was authoritative, the system was simpler,
but as its evolved to encompass many stake holders, decisions become more  
complicated.  Sure, you can opine that you trust the so called core devs and
no one else (which is ironic because Gavin chose the devs), and while that's
certainly a valid stance, you'll still have no more credibility with those that
disagree with you than political pundits have with those who vote for a different party.  

In other words, the "authority is good as long as it's the one I agree with"
philosophy convinces nobody of anything.

[hdbuck]

The real Bitcoin Consensus is and has always been status quo.

Whether you like it or not, that is exactly why nothing has happened as of now, nor will happen in the foreseeable future (at least until we figure if there is any actual, real and persistent problem that has to be dealt with).

But try me, phr0k it if you dare, this will be funnier to watch than MTGox collapse.

[jonald_fyookball]

The real Bitcoin Consensus is and has always been status quo.

Whether you like it or not, that is exactly why nothing has happened as of now, nor will happen in the foreseeable future (at least until we figure if there is any actual, real and persistent problem that has to be dealt with).

But try me, phr0k it if you dare, this will be funnier to watch than MTGox collapse.

I think you have a warped view of
Bitcoin as something etched in
granite.

The codebase constantly is changing.
 
Of course something is happening
now.  Go to blocktrail and see
most of the blocks are voting
for Bip 100 or 8MB, despite the
core devs.

[ashour]

People should realized that bitcoin belongs to the ones that own it and not to some core developers . We, who own bitcoin should be able to decide its fate.

[hdbuck]

People should realized that bitcoin belongs to the ones that own it and not to some core developers . We, who own bitcoin should be are able to decide its fate.

ftfy.

dont mind the clueless sheeps, its all good.




soon they'll be forking off.

[RGBKey]

I agree with you but I'm worried that we're getting to a point where people that use bitcoin don't understand it as fully as they should so they don't know what they should be doing