Bitcoin becoming centrally planned: Communist

[achow101]

I want to Be Wrong, I want to be Convinced Of this, but I fear What are YOU IN too delighted with the Bitcoin to See THIS centralization is Forming.

Why do you say I am delighted? Stop putting words in my mouth. I see that there is centralization, there inherently is. There absolutely is no way to have complete and absolute decentralization. But it isn't on the scale or level which you claim it is.

[IgnorantBitCoin]

When I spoke of exponential increase in rate hash, i don't  suspect of attack , but that has  big betting in Bitcoin.
I didn't believe in Increase hash rate now, because we are Close to see the reduced Reward to 12.5 BTC.

I think I'm calmer now

[IgnorantBitCoin]

I want to Be Wrong, I want to be Convinced Of this, but I fear What are YOU IN too delighted with the Bitcoin to See THIS centralization is Forming.

Why do you say I am delighted? Stop putting words in my mouth. I see that there is centralization, there inherently is. There absolutely is no way to have complete and absolute decentralization. But it isn't on the scale or level which you claim it is.

Okay, you're right. However , it was exactly what I wanted , the total decentralization.
I believe I'll have to accept friendly centralization.

Thank you again for your patience

[RealBitcoin]

saying you dont want devision then saying it would be inevitable
saying you want everyone united, then saying you want subversion

still contradicting yourself
oh and by the way.. bitcoins are more secured by private keys, not blocksizes or client versions.. you wont lose coins if one client goes in one direction or another.. the coins are still locked to the privkey and you can choose to spend them on whichever fork works best.

You read every 5th word I say? Read again because you dont seem to read it all and put words in my mouth.

No, I dont want division, and if its going to be inevitable, then and only then should division happen.

I want people united in spirit, but they should still have their ideas which should compete with eachother, but only in the context that people still remain loyal to the project.

I dont want subversion at all, where did you get this?

I dont lose coins, but I sure damn lose the value of the coins, if sabotage, subversion and manipulations start to happen.

so if we kept loyal to the bitcoin project we would all trust gavin andressen still.. and would remain united and loyal to anything he proposes as he is the project manager.
but wait your happy people didnt remain loyal and united. your happy that subversion happened and he moved off to do it as a separate xt project.

all in all.. trying to say lets all unite and think of bitcoin as a single project is the opposite to reality.. bitcoin has several different implementations. mining pools dont even run the proper bitcoin-core. they have their own code. exchanges and services use their own programs too.

bitcoin is already distributed more than i think you realise, and people are all having different idea's and each of them dont want bitcoin to fail because it affects their own holdings.

compared to 2009-20010 when there was just 1 program, 1 exchange, one team of developers.. bitcoin is much much much better now.
i just dont think you see the bigger picture of the whole ecosystem. i do see your comments seem a bit more lucid than yesterday, but i think you need ust another day yo sit quietly and think about things to see the whole picture.

this may help


i think your putting too much imaginary paranoia into your thoughts and not seeing how spread out bitcoin is.

Alright then, your argument about division is not valid because again I`m not saying blindly follow anybody, I said 3 times that only united in spirit, but each with it's own ideas to compete, so the problem with gavin and the solution to it was necessary to happen, yes many people saw it through.

I like the picture of the services, yes it gives me hope about bitcoins future , thanks

[johnyj]

How many bitcoin players are Required To have consensus? 3 miners, 4 exchange (or wallet) and 5 programmers? If 1,000 of us , running full node , complain , we will be heard?

Case the group of 12 (3 miner, 4 exhange and 5 developer) had accepted the XT , the thousands of claims against would have been heard?

Yes they would have been heard. The thousands of miners who mine at those 3 pools who are against XT (or any other proposed fork) switch to other pools who does not support the fork. Those 3 pools no longer have a majority

The thousands of users (including the miners) who don't support the fork stop using those 4 exchanges and use other less popular but just as good exchanges.

The thousands of users who use those 5 developer's client switch to another client.

With all of the options out there, people aren't being forced to use anything, and if they don't like it, then they don't have to use those products or services which use rules they don't like. This is consensus.

I'm afraid that thousands of users do not have this degree of freedom. What you said is true at the early stage of bitcoin when bitcoin was still in design phase and worth only a little. At this stage, everyone have invested so much money, effort and time into this ecosystem, thus their economy interest will limit their choice

Imagine that majority of exchanges have upgraded to XT and one exchange left running core, and a fork happened. Then core exchange will immediately be flooded by millions of pre-fork coins sell order coming from XT coins holder. The value of core coin will crash to 0 right away. And then there is no meaning in mining this coin, all hash power will leave

This means, if any fork happens without reaching major consensus, it is suicide economically. It does not matter how great your view is for the future or how good your design can scale, nothing matters when the market cap of that coin is 0

People have no choice because they don't want to lose money. Only new users won't lose money because of the change to a new fork, all the existing users (especially full nodes) will refuse a fork without major consensus, due to the potential loss it can incur as described above


So, if no major consensus can be reached upon block size limit, bitcoin will stay at its current form until one day a major consensus is forming. This could be that thousands of transactions queuing up in the mempool and many users start to experience significant delay of confirmation. Currently all these negative things are not happening, that's the reason people are not eager to up the limit.

And by keeping the blocksize at 1MB, eventually a fee market will form. And it is interesting to see if this market can solve some of the capacity problem. So instead of trying to avoid such a fee event, seeing how this fee market will develop is more interesting, because no one knows how people will adapt to this kind of new situation

[achow101]

I'm afraid that thousands of users do not have this degree of freedom. What you said is true at the early stage of bitcoin when bitcoin was still in design phase and worth only a little. At this stage, everyone have invested so much money, effort and time into this ecosystem, thus their economy interest will limit their choice

Imagine that majority of exchanges have upgraded to XT and one exchange left running core, and a fork happened. Then core exchange will immediately be flooded by millions of pre-fork coins sell order coming from XT coins holder. The value of core coin will crash to 0 right away. And then there is no meaning in mining this coin, all hash power will leave

This means, if any fork happens without reaching major consensus, it is suicide economically. It does not matter how great your view is for the future or how good your design can scale, nothing matters when the market cap of that coin is 0

If only the exchanges changed to use XT (or whatever other client that implements a fork), then they would be losing business because few other users are also using XT so they don't make any money. If the users and exchanges were switched to XT and pushing for a for, then the miners would follow because that is where the money is. If miners and exchanges switch but users don't, then those miners and exchanges are incentivised to switch back because there is no money to be made if no one else is using that fork. In all of those cases, it is not possible for one group to coerce everyone else to switch, there has to be two out of three to do so otherwise there is no incentive for the other groups to switch.

Also, in your example, with such a fork, there is nothing that distinguishes a Core transaction from an XT transaction, so those XT holders who are sending core coins to that exchange are also sending their XT coins to that exchange. What you described is simply not possible.

We already know that a fork without consensus is suicidal, it is suicidal for both sides. That is why we always wait for the supermajority before enforcing any sort of fork, hard or soft.

[johnyj]

If only the exchanges changed to use XT (or whatever other client that implements a fork), then they would be losing business because few other users are also using XT so they don't make any money. If the users and exchanges were switched to XT and pushing for a for, then the miners would follow because that is where the money is. If miners and exchanges switch but users don't, then those miners and exchanges are incentivised to switch back because there is no money to be made if no one else is using that fork. In all of those cases, it is not possible for one group to coerce everyone else to switch, there has to be two out of three to do so otherwise there is no incentive for the other groups to switch.

Usually large mining pools have close relationship to exchanges, since they have plenty of liquidity to provide, so I guess they are more or less aligned. Average user however do not really have a choice in where bitcoin is going. So I think the concern of "the group of 12" manipulating bitcoin is real

Users are attracted by bitcoin's several properties:
1. Honest money creation and limited money supply, so its value will always go up long term against fiat money
2. Secure and censorship resistant, a safe medium for storage and transfer of value
3. Fast world wide transaction

When they face a change enforced by miners and exchanges, they have to decide the priority and evaluate what kind of feature they can sacrifice without totally giving up on bitcoin

Statistics showing that majority of people come to bitcoin because of 1 and 2. So any change impacting these property will heavily affect user adoption and drive new users away. 3 are less important. Why no one is too worried about 50% attack? Because 50% attack only affect the payment function of the system, coins in cold storage are not affected. Even chinese government took over all the chinese mining pools, they can't rob other people's coin

Currently there is a trend of advertising bitcoin as a fast and cheap payment method. However, if the new users you gained are just interested in fast and cheap transaction, then you will not have customer loyalty. Once more and more free and instant payment services appear, these customer will easily move away. Besides, this advertisement trend feels like finding innocent new users and dump the coins to them, this is not going to last long  and hurt public image of bitcoin

Also, in your example, with such a fork, there is nothing that distinguishes a Core transaction from an XT transaction, so those XT holders who are sending core coins to that exchange are also sending their XT coins to that exchange. What you described is simply not possible.

After the fork the blocks on XT network will not be known to core network, vice versa, just like litecoin network is not aware of any bitcoin transactions since you are running different software

You brought a very interesting point: If XT somehow can destroy the corresponding coin when a pre-fork coin is spent on core chain, then we can eliminate this kind of dangerous attack. But nothing can enforce XT to do this, I guess that is not in the interest of XT, since they might want to destroy the competitor chain to make sure their success

[Physical Coin Maker]

Large miners should lower their hashrates or stop mining for a month so that we can mine easily. Otherwise it's leading towards centralisation.

[franky1]

ok, i have spent some time trying to theorize RealBitcoins idea..

the best thing i can come to..

bitcoin is a 'freedom government'

where these nodes are civil servants (american senators, uk MP's) and they are all distributed out in different area's of the lands, all with their own agenda and all supposedly performing a service or being honest for the benefit of the people.

yes they can meet up at the senate(irc://#bitcoin-dev) and discuss new rules, new rights, new ways to tax(fee) how to speed up the justice system.(block validation) but because there is no president/prime minister/overlord. its not centralised. its just organised distribution.

i think RealBitcoin is trying to say that although senators(nodes) live in different states, come from different backgrounds and have different motives for being senators(nodes). there is visible and recorded history that collusion happens in the real world governments. and the same could happen with bitcoin.

though colluding to screw up bitcoin is like the senate saying "lets screw the dollar", or parliament saying "lets screw up the pound" which ultimately would only hurt themselves aswell as others.

[spartacusrex]

though colluding to screw up bitcoin is like the senate saying "lets screw the dollar", or parliament saying "lets screw up the pound" which ultimately would only hurt themselves aswell as others.

Which is exactly what they have done.

[achow101]

Usually large mining pools have close relationship to exchanges, since they have plenty of liquidity to provide, so I guess they are more or less aligned. Average user however do not really have a choice in where bitcoin is going. So I think the concern of "the group of 12" manipulating bitcoin is real

Users are attracted by bitcoin's several properties:
1. Honest money creation and limited money supply, so its value will always go up long term against fiat money
2. Secure and censorship resistant, a safe medium for storage and transfer of value
3. Fast world wide transaction

When they face a change enforced by miners and exchanges, they have to decide the priority and evaluate what kind of feature they can sacrifice without totally giving up on bitcoin

Statistics showing that majority of people come to bitcoin because of 1 and 2. So any change impacting these property will heavily affect user adoption and drive new users away. 3 are less important. Why no one is too worried about 50% attack? Because 50% attack only affect the payment function of the system, coins in cold storage are not affected. Even chinese government took over all the chinese mining pools, they can't rob other people's coin

Right, so if people are coming for reasons 1 and 2, then they have a vested interest to keep Bitcoin that way. This means that if there are people who are turning Bitcoin onto a path that leads away from those two goals, those who are here for reasons 1 and 2 will be the people who are turning away from those guys and preventing that from happening. So if that group is the majority, then such nefarious schemes to sabotage Bitcoin are not likely to happen.

Currently there is a trend of advertising bitcoin as a fast and cheap payment method. However, if the new users you gained are just interested in fast and cheap transaction, then you will not have customer loyalty. Once more and more free and instant payment services appear, these customer will easily move away. Besides, this advertisement trend feels like finding innocent new users and dump the coins to them, this is not going to last long  and hurt public image of bitcoin

True, and it is also a major source of people's complaints. Of course what they don't realize is that Bitcoin transactions settle (become non-reversible) much faster than credit card payments.

After the fork the blocks on XT network will not be known to core network, vice versa, just like litecoin network is not aware of any bitcoin transactions since you are running different software

You brought a very interesting point: If XT somehow can destroy the corresponding coin when a pre-fork coin is spent on core chain, then we can eliminate this kind of dangerous attack. But nothing can enforce XT to do this, I guess that is not in the interest of XT, since they might want to destroy the competitor chain to make sure their success

No, you are incorrect here. Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT transactions will be exactly the same, and they will still be connected to each other unless a protocol level change such as changing the magic bytes happens. The only difference is the blockchain the node is using. That means that any transaction that spends pre-fork coins can and probably will be confirmed on both blockchains. And that will continue as long as none of the inputs in the transaction chain becomes tainted with any newly generated coins after the fork (which may be a little hard to do). So if a Bitcoin XT holder decides that he immediately wants to cashout his Core coins, then the transaction he sends to send his core coins to the exchange will also send his XT coins to the same address. That means he won't have access to any of his coins. To actually split it up so that there are actually two sets of coins to be spendable is a lot harder and a lot more hassle to do.

And the easiest way to avoid this is to fork with consensus.

[johnyj]

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT transactions will be exactly the same, and they will still be connected to each other unless a protocol level change such as changing the magic bytes happens. The only difference is the blockchain the node is using. That means that any transaction that spends pre-fork coins can and probably will be confirmed on both blockchains. And that will continue as long as none of the inputs in the transaction chain becomes tainted with any newly generated coins after the fork (which may be a little hard to do). So if a Bitcoin XT holder decides that he immediately wants to cashout his Core coins, then the transaction he sends to send his core coins to the exchange will also send his XT coins to the same address. That means he won't have access to any of his coins. To actually split it up so that there are actually two sets of coins to be spendable is a lot harder and a lot more hassle to do.

But you just need XT nodes to reject those transactions by blend in some new core coins, and I'm sure you will find a way to do that when you have million dollars worth of coins to dump

I think a consensus is much easier to reach when everyone is experiencing the same problem in reality, not just some imaginary problem claimed by different devs

[achow101]

But you just need XT nodes to reject those transactions by blend in some new core coins, and I'm sure you will find a way to do that when you have million dollars worth of coins to dump

That is easier said than done. With a fraction of the mining power, blocks would not be produced at the normal rate. They would be mined much slower. And coinbase transactions must have at least 100 confirmations before being spendable, so those trying to dump would need to wait some time before being able to taint their coins with newly generated ones. And most miners seem to not spend their newly mined coins soon after. Looking at the blockchain, most recent coinbase transactions are not being spent.

I think a consensus is much easier to reach when everyone is experiencing the same problem in reality, not just some imaginary problem claimed by different devs

It is. Is there currently an imaginary problem that is being claimed? The current problem is this block size problem, and it most certainly is not being claimed by only the devs, it is being claimed by everyone else.

Another thing, would you rather wait for a problem to become an actual problem and start screwing with things or would you rather know that a problem that could cause future pains exists and then promptly fix that problem to preempt it? It causes less problems to fix an issue before it becomes a problem than it does to wait for it to become urgent before fixing it. Of course, the problem has to exist first (and be proven to exist), just that it isn't causing a lot of trouble at the current time.

[RealBitcoin]

i think RealBitcoin is trying to say that although senators(nodes) live in different states, come from different backgrounds and have different motives for being senators(nodes). there is visible and recorded history that collusion happens in the real world governments. and the same could happen with bitcoin.

No, what I`m saying is that everyone looks for their own interests, thats just basic human nature.

And if 1 group of people have too much power over others (bitcoin miner vs bitcoin user) then they will impose their will on the others.

Thus even though 90% of bitcoin users want option A, if the miners see option B as more profitable for them, they will enforce option B, and the bitcoin users will just have to follow along like sheep.

[watashi-kokoto]

You guys are saying as if it were a bad thing.

[thejaytiesto]

Yes mining is somewhat centralized, but just wait and see until some day one of those altcoins like XT or Classic win due casuals and shills giving their support and they centralize the nodes too, then that will be actual game over.
But while Core devs are on charge supporting a pro privacy and pro decentralized node (small blocksize) agenda, we are safe. If Gavincoiners gain traction, it's time to sell.

[watashi-kokoto]

the casuals and shills giving their support

the casuals can fork of to their edgy little altcoin. We are going to set the rules in stone, then put on some segwit and we're done here.

[arbitrage]

Lots of talks here about communism and centralization..
Everything you know about communism is from TV? History channel?
Bitcoin can be used in every system you can imagine because have nothing in common with it!

I dont understand how bitcoin have problems with centralization?

[Denker]

the casuals and shills giving their support

the casuals can fork of to their edgy little altcoin. We are going to set the rules in stone, then put on some segwit and we're done here.

Your absoltely right.
Let them fork off and finally shut up.I'm getting sick from all this nonsense and attempts to undermine Bitcoin.Because that's the only plan.But it won't work out!

[kanazawa]

Excuse me but, is there anyone here who has ever lived in a socialist/communist country?? I'm not joking and I don't want to be rude, but let me take your time...

First, some classic quotes:

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism". - Vladmir Lenin

"The goal of socialism is communism". - Vladmir Lenin

"Democracy is the road to socialism". - Karl Marx

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism". - Karl Marx


Communism is the ultimate step from a "social democrat" to a socialist political scenario.

When you make everyone "democratic" with social affairs, social benefits, social assistance, when you got tons of parties naming themselves "Social Labour Party", "Democratic Republic Party", "Social Democrat Party", "Christian Social Party", "People Social Party" you're just one step from "Socialist Party", "Republican Socialist Party", "Socialism and Freedom", then you get "United Working Class Party", "People Socialist Party", "National Liberation Movement", "Socialist and United Workers Party", and finally "Communist Party", etc.

In communism, first of all, you have a party and some figures (like Fidel, Maduro, Kim Jong Un, and "past" figures from countries like USSR, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc)... they had (have) a godlike representation. This is very visible when you look at religion; this countries don't have the religious freedom. This is why when USSR was dominated by communism, even Buddhism was prohibited. Christianism and Judaism is oposed because it brings the notion of family, to not worship the Emperor or The Leader. The right of private property, the right of inheritance and  all kinds of freedom.

The lack of freedom brings (of course) the extermination of the free market.

All of this brings violence, famine and death. It's a "government" of fear.

Lot of countries are following the steps to communism. They are in America, in Europe, Asia and all around the world.

So, once again, communism is the final path to socialim. It is the socialization of means of production. Communism is a stark form to forcing you to be equal to another people; even if you have money, the communists will take it from you and use in "a common way to share", but everything goes to the party and the heads besides them.

Now...

Bitcoin has nothing to do with it. It's tremendously different. It's very, very, VERY DIFFERENT. Nothing compares to that.