Bitcoin becoming centrally planned: Communist

[RealBitcoin]

So is this really the path we are going to take? Bitcoin is being constantly developed by the developers. They hold the development sceptre in their hands and push everything down the throat of a bitcoin user, with the consensus of the miners (who on most part look only for their own interests).

Yes bitcoin is unfortunately becoming centrally planned, communist, and identical to a central bank fiat currency system. Even if bitcoin is not a fiat money, because the develpment holds the power to steer bitcoin in the wrong way, we should be careful how much power we give to the developers. We have now 5 year plans and 10 year plans for bitcoin? That's like soviet central planning isnt it.


It's easy to abuse power, bitcoiners should know that more than anybody, yet we give full power to developers?

Consensus or not, I feel they hold too much power , and bitcoin could be steered towards a dark path.


How much more development does bitcoin really need? When it will be over? Or it will be forever developed and the developers will become the Gods of bitcoin?

If this hole isnt closed then it will have big blowbacks later because anybody can just manipulate and corrupt the developers.

Next step: Governments will take over or "regulate" the development process of bitcoin, and game over. Bitcoin is gone as an independent currency.

[achow101]

So is this really the path we are going to take? Bitcoin is being constantly developed by the developers. They hold the development sceptre in their hands and push everything down the throat of a bitcoin user, with the consensus of the miners (who on most part look only for their own interests).

Yes bitcoin is becoming centrally planned, communist, and identical to a central bank fiat currency system. Even if bitcoin is not a fiat money, because the develpment holds the power to steer bitcoin in the wrong way, we should be careful how much power we give to the developers.

It's easy to abuse power, bitcoiners should know that more than anybody, yet we give full power to developers?

Consensus or not, I feel they hold too much power , and bitcoin could be steered towards a dark path.

Communism isn't centrally planned. Communism is everyone sharing and reaching consensus without a leader. I believe what you are thinking is socialism, which leads to dictatorships.

But that's not the point. Development allows improvements to the software. It fixes bugs and adds new features that people want. Without development you are basically hoping that no one at any point in time will want any other features and that there will be no vulnerabilities in the code for people to exploit. It is predicting the future, and that is impossible. We need further development to improve Bitcoin.

Another thing is the open source. While yes the developers have power because they can change the code that people use, the open source nature means that not everyone has to use what the developers want you to use. You can at any point fork the code and modify and write your own client. It doesn't have to conform to the rules that the developers have set, you can set your own. If people don't like where Bitcoin is going, they can switch to use another client, or just use another altcoin.

[franky1]

So is this really the path we are going to take? Bitcoin is being constantly developed by the developers. They hold the development sceptre in their hands and push everything down the throat of a bitcoin user, with the consensus of the miners (who on most part look only for their own interests).

Yes bitcoin is becoming centrally planned, communist, and identical to a central bank fiat currency system. Even if bitcoin is not a fiat money, because the develpment holds the power to steer bitcoin in the wrong way, we should be careful how much power we give to the developers.

It's easy to abuse power, bitcoiners should know that more than anybody, yet we give full power to developers?

Consensus or not, I feel they hold too much power , and bitcoin could be steered towards a dark path.


How much more development does bitcoin really need? When it will be over? Or it will be forever developed and the developers will become the Gods of bitcoin?

anyone can join github and be part of it. its not a closed 'mens club'
anyone can make a copy of the github and make their own collective,
anyone can choose not to update anything they dont like
anyone can downgrade if they find new versions have issues

what i find more surprising is that you are a NXT fanboy. which is more centralised..

[pereira4]

If you don't like what you see then run nodes of the fork you like and convince others to do so. Personally I think the current team is better than the "Benevolent dictator" Gavincoin fork but each to its own man, just run whatever node you want.
Lets not forget anyone can propose code in github as well.

[RealBitcoin]

Communism isn't centrally planned. Communism is everyone sharing and reaching consensus without a leader. I believe what you are thinking is socialism, which leads to dictatorships.

Well communism had it's fair share of dictators too didnt it? Central planning is a tenet of communism & socialism.

But that's not the point. Development allows improvements to the software. It fixes bugs and adds new features that people want. Without development you are basically hoping that no one at any point in time will want any other features and that there will be no vulnerabilities in the code for people to exploit. It is predicting the future, and that is impossible. We need further development to improve Bitcoin.

I understand that, and I support that.

But we still need to find the balance, just simply giving all power to them can lead to corruption, and it will lead to it guaranteed.

We cannot base the bitcoin project on a perpetual deity system, where a few chosen ones will just steer bitcoin to wherever they want.

Another thing is the open source. While yes the developers have power because they can change the code that people use, the open source nature means that not everyone has to use what the developers want you to use. You can at any point fork the code and modify and write your own client. It doesn't have to conform to the rules that the developers have set, you can set your own. If people don't like where Bitcoin is going, they can switch to use another client, or just use another altcoin.

I`m not questioning the immediate code of bitcoin.

I`m questioning the future direction of bitcoin, and the path it will take in the future. Just the current bitcoin debate makes me very unconfortable, and indifferent of the outcome, the mere fact that we give so much power to people who will despotically decide over BTC is not correct,

[croato]

anyone can join github and be part of it. its not a closed 'mens club'
anyone can make a copy of the github and make their own collective,
anyone can choose not to update anything they dont like
anyone can downgrade if they find new versions have issues

what i find more surprising is that you are a NXT fanboy. which is more centralised..

So what if GITHUB becomes malicious?

It's not just the developers, but the whole development method, the mere fact that it's being developed is a problem.

Why cant just bitcoin development stop after all bugs are fixed, because further developments can create new bugs, therefore it will require permanent development, which is the same justification as for a paternal government.

Why dont we stop developing medicine for example, or industry, or anything? Dude, everything evolves and is under constant development. If not we would still be in stone age.

[achow101]

Well communism had it's fair share of dictators too didnt it? Central planning is a tenet of communism & socialism.

No its not. Please do your research about the differences between communism and socialism. There is no central planning in communism. In communism people agree to share equally and adhere to those ideas. In socialism, there is a central authority who is forcing everyone under their command to adhere to communistic ideas, whether they want to or not. There is a huge difference between the two.

I understand that, and I support that.

But we still need to find the balance, just simply giving all power to them can lead to corruption, and it will lead to it guaranteed.

We cannot base the bitcoin project on a perpetual deity system, where a few chosen ones will just steer bitcoin to wherever they want.

Balance between what? Developers don't have the "ultimate power". They can only publish something, its up to the users whether they want to use it or not. No one is forcing the users to use certain code, it is all up to the users to decide.

I`m questioning the future direction of bitcoin, and the path it will take in the future. Just the current bitcoin debate makes me very unconfortable, and indifferent of the outcome, the mere fact that we give so much power to people who will despotically decide over BTC is not correct,

What exactly are you concerned about? They also do not and cannot despotically decide over what happens to Bitcoin. Again, it is up to the users to decide whether to use their code or not.

If you don't like the developers, then what do you propose we do? How are you going to restrict their power without giving someone else power? I think the current system is fine. There are many many developers, not just the core developers, who contribute to discussions and code. Even if one person wants to go in one direction, there may be opposition. In fact there often is opposition to proposed ideas, from both the community and other developers. Yet they always reach consensus before merging something in through various compromises. No one developer holds absolute power, and there will most definitely not be a collusion of developers to force Bitcoin in one direction. There are simply too many people with too many differing opinions for that to happen.

[Lauda]

So what if GITHUB becomes malicious?

What if it does? We switch to a new client and problem solved. Do you really think that miners, exchanges, other services, users, etc. would risk so much money and stay with malicious developers/etc. ? If so, think twice.

It's not just the developers, but the whole development method the mere fact that it's being developed is a problem.

Why cant just bitcoin development stop after all bugs are fixed, because further developments can create new bugs, therefore it will require permanent development, which is the same justification as for a paternal government.

This statement is very ignorant and I am pretty sure that you're not a tech savy user or developer/engineer. If we quit development right now, Bitcoin would most likely die within the next few years. A example is ECDSA and quantum computers; we can't know what is going to happen and when new security flaws might appear. Bitcoin has so much potential and there have been huge improvements compared to the original client.

[RustyNoman]

If you don't like what you see then run nodes of the fork you like and convince others to do so. Personally I think the current team is better than the "Benevolent dictator" Gavincoin fork but each to its own man, just run whatever node you want.
Lets not forget anyone can propose code in github as well.

Democracy may not be good for bitcoin, we are reaching critical point of block chain size. There is still no agreement.

[unamis76]

If you disagree with current developments/development methods you can release a fork of your own, call it a final version, release it and request adoption of your client.

Bitcoin cannot be static. Just like the banking system developed, Bitcoin must have its own developments for it to succeed and to adapt to an everchanging society. There is no good in having software and services stuck in time. It's just like latin language: it's not spoken or developed upon, and it's slowly dying.

[achow101]

Gold didnt got developed, it's just there as it is.

Can't bitcoin have the same philosophy? Stop development after all critical bugs are fixed, that doesnt mean they should not monitor it, they should, however , we are not having like future plans for bitcoin.

That is not a correct comparison. Gold and the concept of Bitcoin being an item are there. However what we are improving is the method of transacting and transferring Bitcoin. The same thing happened with gold. Gold itself never changed, the same with Bitcoin (if you abstract the technicalities of Bitcoin to be actual coins). The methods of moving gold around have changed. It used to be lug around a ton of gold and hand it to someone else in a transaction. It became give your gold to someone else who gives you paper which represents that gold. Without those constant improvements to the way gold was transacted, we would still be lugging around chunks of gold, hacking off a bit, weighing it, and then handing it over in a trade. That transaction method is still in general the basic method of transacting, and is the basis of higher level easier transacting of gold.

The same thing is happening with Bitcoin. There are improvements being made into how it is being transacted. Currently we use send to addresses. Improvements were made for payment requests, multisig transactions. Improvements are being made for locking outputs so that they can only be spent at a later date. There is work done to reduce the amount of data you need to store. There are improvements being made in the ways that we are transacting Bitcoin just like there were improvements in transacting gold.

That is central planning: 5 year plans, 10 year plans, it's total communism if you ask me. So a lot of parralel can be drawn between communists and bitcoin development.

THAT IS NOT COMMUNISM. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COMMUNISM IS!!! DO YOUR RESEARCH INTO WHAT COMMUNISM ACTUALLY IS!!!

That is simply planning, and it may be centralized. BUT IT ISN"T COMMUNISM!!

You can also draw the comparison for planning things in advance into everything. Are you telling me that you live your life without planning a few years in advance? If you do, by your logic, you are a communist! Also, everything has future plans. Huge tech companies like Google and Apple plan things several years in advance.

It isn't communism, it is simply good organization and actually knowing what the hell you are doing. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!

They have the "authority" and an authority figure in bitcoin, and everone looks to them for answers. Like the relation between a government and citizen.

They do. But they can also be replaced. If people don't like the government, they revolt and replace the government with another. Likewise, if people don't like what the developers are doing, they can simply move on and go to a new fork which has different developers.

They can manipulate people and steer them in the wrong way. Which can be used as a DIVIDE ET IMPERA sabotage technique against bitcoin.

If the developers get corrupted or infiltrated, they can be used as a tool to sabotage the project.

Again, open source and the freedom to choose what you want to run protects against that. People don't like where Bitcoin is going, they switch to use another fork.

[franky1]

Gold didnt got developed, it's just there as it is.

Can't bitcoin have the same philosophy? Stop development after all critical bugs are fixed, that doesnt mean they should not monitor it, they should, however , we are not having like future plans for bitcoin.

gold is natural. its not created in a lab. but... here is the rub. gold is buggy (impure) it requires refining.. so your analogy is to stop refining/purifying gold.

secondly do you know when the bugs will be fixed. i mean.. even when microsoft releases a new version of windows that they believe is the most bug free version. ready for mass release.. within weeks new UNFORSEEN bugs become realised. and new patches are created, even XP which was released years ago is still not bug free.. but instead of keep developing it, microsoft decided to ditch it.

if bug fixes stop happening, people end up ditching it.

lastly.. you say "that doesnt mean they should not monitor it" . "they" who?? and if "they" do see a bug, will "they" be allowed by you to provide a fix. or will "they" just moan on a forum and hope someone else provide a fix. and this someone else will you then say that this someone else is the new 'god'.

when you realise that there are over 100 people always looking into bitcoin, all from different countries, all with different backgrounds and skills you should be happy that they continue to bug fix and test constantly.. rather then just waiting for things to screw up and hoping a random person who has not been scrutinized by his peers who's fix has not been pre-tested by over 100 people before its even released to the masses.

bug fixes should always happen.. i think what you should be arguing is not bugs.. but hard forks caused purely for 'features' which such occurrences should be reduced or no longer required.

EG. SegWit.. all of the features of datasize drop can be done in client-side coding without affecting the main protocol. bitcoins protocol does not need to fork the main chain just for litewallet clients to benefit from a drop in databloat(pruning signatures).

[johnyj]

anyone can join github and be part of it. its not a closed 'mens club'
anyone can make a copy of the github and make their own collective,
anyone can choose not to update anything they dont like
anyone can downgrade if they find new versions have issues

True, in theory it is so, but in practice it is more complex.

1. Not everyone possess the skills and time to work on github, and most importantly not everyone have commit access, that is the point of centralized control. Even for core devs it is difficult and time consuming to understand the meaning of a complex scheme promoted by their colleagues

2. You can fork to another set of code easily, but you can't fork the whole ecosystem, e.g. community, investors, miners, exchanges, etc... Not everyone have the same weight in this ecosystem, miners and exchanges almost decided which version is "currently official". And the investor who has the most coins can decide which chain can survive economically if there is a fork (trying to fork your own coin and establish your own exchange? The moment your exchange is up and running, you will face millions of coins dumped from pre-fork coin holder)

I think it is very important to keep the communication open and transparent, that is not easy due to the knowledge gap between different actors' expertise in their specific area

[johnyj]

So is this really the path we are going to take? Bitcoin is being constantly developed by the developers. They hold the development sceptre in their hands and push everything down the throat of a bitcoin user, with the consensus of the miners (who on most part look only for their own interests).

At least all the decisions must be backed by concrete data from research and statistics, not imagination or wishful thinking. I suppose that most of the community members are sane and literate 

[achow101]

True, in theory it is so, but in practice it is more complex.

1. Not everyone possess the skills and time to work on github, and most importantly not everyone have commit access, that is the point of centralized control. Even for core devs it is difficult and time consuming to understand the meaning of a complex scheme promoted by their colleagues

But it is also the way that pretty much every single open source project out there works. You don't need commit access to the main project if you can just fork it off. The not having commit access is good because it prevents people from inserting malicious code and just screwing with the whole thing.

2. You can fork to another set of code easily, but you can't fork the whole ecosystem, e.g. community, investors, miners, exchanges, etc... Not everyone have the same weight in this ecosystem, miners and exchanges almost decided which version is "currently official". And the investor who has the most coins can decide which chain can survive economically if there is a fork

That is true. Miners carry a lot of weight, but I think the exchanges carry more. Miners aren't going to mine on a fork if they can't exchange it. The same kind of goes with business that accept Bitcoin. They aren't going to use a fork if no one uses it and likewise miners and users won't use a fork if no one accepts it. It is kind of a big convoluted circle, but I don't think the developers have that much weight. They can't really force people to do anything, but businesses and exchanges can because the economy relies on them, and that is what is important.

I think it is very important to keep the communication open and transparent, that is not easy due to the knowledge gap between different actors in their specific area

Communication is open and transparent, at least among the developers. All of their discussion is in the mailing list, irc, or on github. And all of it is logged so people can go back and see what has been said. Of course technical jargon and acronyms are often used so it can be hard for nondevelopers to understand.

[johnyj]

True, in theory it is so, but in practice it is more complex.

1. Not everyone possess the skills and time to work on github, and most importantly not everyone have commit access, that is the point of centralized control. Even for core devs it is difficult and time consuming to understand the meaning of a complex scheme promoted by their colleagues

But it is also the way that pretty much every single open source project out there works. You don't need commit access to the main project if you can just fork it off. The not having commit access is good because it prevents people from inserting malicious code and just screwing with the whole thing.

A normal open source project is different than bitcoin, since bitcoin is money. Because of billions of dollar of value involved here, this central point of control will attract careerist/capitalist like rotten fish to flies. How can you make sure they are incorruptible, given average developer are not super rich elites in today's society

2. You can fork to another set of code easily, but you can't fork the whole ecosystem, e.g. community, investors, miners, exchanges, etc... Not everyone have the same weight in this ecosystem, miners and exchanges almost decided which version is "currently official". And the investor who has the most coins can decide which chain can survive economically if there is a fork

That is true. Miners carry a lot of weight, but I think the exchanges carry more. Miners aren't going to mine on a fork if they can't exchange it. The same kind of goes with business that accept Bitcoin. They aren't going to use a fork if no one uses it and likewise miners and users won't use a fork if no one accepts it. It is kind of a big convoluted circle, but I don't think the developers have that much weight. They can't really force people to do anything, but businesses and exchanges can because the economy relies on them, and that is what is important

Exactly. Unfortunately exchanges and businesses usually do not process enough IT expertise at code level, so they are the target of lobbying. You can see that a large exchange coinbase joined XT club, means they don't really understand what that means (If XT forked without super majority, they will face millions of coins sell from the core chain)

Communication is open and transparent, at least among the developers. All of their discussion is in the mailing list, irc, or on github. And all of it is logged so people can go back and see what has been said. Of course technical jargon and acronyms are often used so it can be hard for nondevelopers to understand.

That's the problem here, to communicate with businesses and exchanges, developers should describe their idea clearly in understandable form, or with good examples, however they usually have different aspect than business people, so the communication is almost impossible. When you have a communication difficulty or a conflict of interest, then you end up in a political way, to rely on the one you trust, and this will make some politically weak devs to be compromised

[IgnorantBitCoin]

The Satoshi's dream is Over!! RealBitcoin is right, bitcoin now is centralized in few miners and few greater wallet online (coinbase, blockchain wallet, ...)

Bitcoin  is centralized now

[rokkyroad]

Well I would not go so far as to say Communist but those with the most bitcoins win.

[franky1]

ok realbitcoin is stoned and having paranoia moment today..

lets give him a few days to sober up and let him reflect on his thoughts.

with mining in china, iceland, canada, uk, and europe.. i dont see mining as centralised.
as for the paranoia about government.. they dont need to control the code. as the code will be limiting to them.  because if we see dodgy code we wont download. its just that simple.

all they have to do is tax bitcoin direct.. within the year they would own atleast 90% of coins. so relax about the code.

as for the services. if they want to use dodgy code.. let them.. we just wont deposit with them.. they will soon change their mind..

so realbitcoin. go back to your centralised NXT website. and by the way.. communism which is community sharing is what bitcoin is.. what you describe is capitalism

[achow101]

I`m not sure of most of those need developing, i think it's a wrong philosophy.

No, you have the wrong philosophy. Everything needs development and improvement. Without improving medicine, the average lifespan would not be in the 70s and 80s; we would not have eradicated diseases like smallpox; diseases that we don't consider life threatening would kill you. In industry, improvements increase output, efficiency, quality among others. Without improvements to our technology, you wouldn't even be here on the internet discussing on an internet forum about a new technology called Bitcoin. If everything simply stopped at the first iteration like you are suggesting, then we would still be using rocks and living in caves. Improvements and development of things are required to advance anything.

Bitcoin should be designed to be resilient, not to be a command and control vehicle that will be used for manipulation in the future.

It is resilient. Bitcoin right now can survive a lot of things, including forks. But there can be improvements made. If development were to stop, bitcoin would still work, but it would not be its best.

How exactly is it a command and control vehicle for manipulation in the future?

For now we can play with nice developers, but what if governments take over the development process, and put a government agency regulating bitcoin development.

Again, open source. If we don't like what the developers do, then we just fork and use a client created by other developers. Even if one country regulates Bitcoin, that doesn't mean that all countries will. Developers in other countries can simply step in and replace those that were removed due to regulation.