Bitcoin becoming centrally planned: Communist

[johnyj]

Unless for some miracle everyone becomes a pro programer with lots of free time,  I think would be impossible the situation be much better.

We need reliable people to make the common user know when the things are really getting bad

Who is going to be these reliable people? And what if they have a conflict of interest? Trust and hope should never be in the decision making of bitcoin, research and understanding is the way to go

I think there is a safe way: You simply ignore all the upgrade unless you fully understand those BIP proposal. I know today lots of people upgrade without understanding BIPs in new version, so there is a need for user friendly presentation to translate each BIP into language that everyone can understand thus make their own decision

[johnyj]

Only Those Who invested a lot of money is what important, others can scream have been ignored. I was sad, but  It's always been like that and this will always be so.

Right, only those who actively use Bitcoin and don't just hodl. They are the people who actively participate in the economy and they are the ones that can exert influence. It has always been like this and always will be, as that is how every economy works.

Everything depends on the users, those actually spending. Businesses will accept what people are using, exchanges will accept what people are using, and so will miners because then they can use what they are mining.

Those who have a lot of Bitcoin and just hodl don't have any control. They can't do anything because they aren't actually participating in the economy, so they have little influence.

This is not how economy works, economy is all about power, politics and illusions

Those who have lots of bitcoin and just hodl have the biggest influence to this ecosystem. Because if bitcoin have no value, then it is no use for anybody. And large capitals can greatly affect its value, both on exchanges and mining infrastructure

Remember Satoshi's 1 million coins? I think those coins functions as a nuclear weapon against a malicious fork by a group of people, if that fork gains momentum and is not in the vision of Satoshi, he will dump all those coins on that fork's exchange and send its value to 0, thus kill it. Of course nothing preventing people from using that fork and slowly build up its value again after the crash. But capital will only chase the coin with the highest market capital (this is also why Ethereum will never get close to bitcoin's market cap)

It is the capital maintain bitcoin's value and its infrastructure, not the end user, and they own mining farms and exchanges, basically have control over where bitcoin is going

Being user oriented is a wrong mindset, because money is all about power, how to manage power is totally another area of study

You can imagine, large capitals are more concerned about the security and integrity of the system instead of transaction fee, because they can afford very high transaction fee, that's why BIP 101 did not receive enough support

[Blind Legs Parker]

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.

It is not predicting the future. It is being awfully wrong. Because the future is actually very predictable in some case like this one: of course if you leave the code as it is now without updating it, someone will hack it.
If an apple is released from a tree, it will fall to the ground.

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 don't know your sources but here are mine, that's to say, about any dictionary or article that would pop up amidst the first results when you type "communism" in google:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Communism.html
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/communism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism

Now can I see your sources? Because I really feel like what you're talking about is actually a kind of self regulated anarchy. Which is in fact quite opposite to communism (and extremely idealistic but that's another matter).

Now let me quote something for thruth so that I remain on topic:

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 totally agree with this. There are of course people who hold more power than others, but no one has any despotic kind of power, and that won't happen because customers also have their word.
And it's not because bitcoin is "planned" that it necessarily is communist. Bitcoin's economical system is even actually fairly liberal (bwahaha fairly liberal ). Not even remotely socialist in any way. Needless to talk about it being communist. That's a nonsense.

[RealBitcoin]

Would you rather that there be absolutely no chance for a cure for cancer? The fact that we have researchers looking for cures means that the odds of finding one are greater than 0, and that is much better than guaranteeing that there is no cure.

Prevention you say, well vaccines prevent illnesses. But without advances in medicine we wouldn't have vaccines. Without further advances there wouldn't be vaccines for new diseases, and we wouldn't be able to improve the current ones to work better.

There cannot be a cure for cancer because cancer is not an ilness, it's a mutation. And it can appear anywhere.

Looking for a magic elixir to cure all diseases is more like a scam and taxpayer money is easily funneled to fund these con artist researchers.


To combat cancer, you just need to eat healthy and boost your immune system.


Use the same philosophy in bitcoin. There will be thousands of malware targeting it and exploiting it, it should have been designed to be immune to that, just like linux vs windows. Bitcoin should not be developed constantly.

While true, it is just as easy to manipulate users away from a dark agenda. It is easy to manipulate people to revolt, as we have seen historically in a number of large revolutions.

Except that evil always has more resources than good people. Just look the elite vs the common people. The elite alone have more wealth than the rest of the humans combined.

We is the users of Bitcoin. There are many users of Bitcoin who, like me, actually give a shit and research things. If we (technologically savvy and actually caring about the code and technical details) are aware of changes being made that could be disastrous, we would let everyone know. And most people who use Bitcoin now are not ignorant and many people do care. It will be the people who join later if/when bitcoin goes mainstream that don't care and are ignorant.

I hope you are right there

[n2004al]

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.

I think that there is a little more than needed imagination here. As for me developers are an irreplaceable piece of bitcoin. If even only one developer will have something to ad to bitcoin there will be need for him and he must be respected not as a God but as an important person who is doing something very important: is doing bitcoin a better product.

As for the centralization of bitcoin no one and nothing cannot realize it even will have desire. No one can control bitcoin. Whatever can do. Even the owners of pools that have much more power and possibility to realize such "wonder" cannot do this. For the simple reason that in the moment that all those who are in market agree to make common policies (mean centralized policies) like the 5 years plans (the 10 ones I haven't proved because in my country existed only the 5 years ones before the '90) of Soviet Union to manage bitcoin, there can be created tens of other pools owners that will make again their policies and not those of the first group. So no centralization.

As for the power of developers I don't think that cannot become any risk from them. It is out of mind that 5 or 10 or 15 people work to own bitcoin. Is out of mind this thing. About 15 million of bitcoin are already produced and are out of their hands. So remain to be produced only 6 million. And all those during more than 100 years. Even they will have the possibility to live other 100 years and own it, this amount is not enough to make them controller of bitcoin. Is less than 50% of the amount in circulation. To control bitcoin mean to be able to control its amount in circulation, its price at the market and first of all to be able to produce it as you want. All the previous are totally impossible to be realized by not 5 or 10 or 15 people but by no one.

The fear of OP seems not justifiable.  

[partysaurus]

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.

could not agree more!

[whizz94]

There's Reds under the Bed!

How daft do you lot look to people from outside of the influence of the Wall St cabal of central banks and intolerance to all that is not theirs to dictate to?

Central plans are such bold and forward looking statements as were made when one man stood in front of a microphone and said "Before this decade is over, we shall send a man to the moon, and return him safely to earth.  We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard" ... perhaps someone with better access to history could paste the exact wording.  My point is that having a central plan is not necessarily a bad thing, and in my view is necessary to set and acheive the highest possible standards in all that we do.

Following a central-bank plan of "lets flog penny stocks to the muggles and divert the proceeds to the poor retired banker extra pocket money fund" would be horrid, and it is that, not Reds under The Bed scares which I suggest we be most vehemently opposed to.

[bitsmichel]

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.

I disagree with this statement. It is very clear the develoeprs do not have a sceptre in their hands, from the recent blocksize debate. Also do not forget the developers cannot push changes as they want, if the miners do not agree no change is made. Bitcoin is decentralized and without consensus they are powerless.

[achow101]

Use the same philosophy in bitcoin. There will be thousands of malware targeting it and exploiting it, it should have been designed to be immune to that, just like linux vs windows. Bitcoin should not be developed constantly.

Linux and Windows are constantly being developed, otherwise we would still be using MS-DOS. Look at the linux kernel git: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/. There are commits happening very frequently, and some even happened today. Windows is also constantly developed. They release windows updates every tuesday of each month. They release Service Packs and new Windows versions. Are you calling that "not constantly developed"? More people rely on Windows and linux every day than do people who use Bitcoin. They have more at stake, and they still constantly develop.

[franky1]

centralised means ONE point of failure.

so here is the challenge..

find me the SINGLE node that can make bitcoin fail.

do this and you can win the argument.

remember:
if one miner gets nefarious, there are a dozen others that can ignore that fork
if there is one exchange that gets nefarious there are a dozen others that people can use
if there is one bitcoin-core update that gets nefarious there are a dozen versions that people can choose.

so think real hard. and find that single point of failure.

goodluck..

P.S if you cannot, then please accept that bitcoin is distributed, not centralized.. and requires many points to collude to cause potential failures.
and that the argument is that bitcoin slowing reducing its distribution independence thus collusion is slightly more theoretically possible

[RealBitcoin]

I disagree with this statement. It is very clear the develoeprs do not have a sceptre in their hands, from the recent blocksize debate. Also do not forget the developers cannot push changes as they want, if the miners do not agree no change is made. Bitcoin is decentralized and without consensus they are powerless.

But the mere conflict that debate creates, is one form of sabotage.

As you can alredy see the blocksize debate is already causing FUD and hurting the price, and has a possibility of forking the community.

Classic Divide & Conquer.

[franky1]

Classic Divide & Conquer.

so you dont want central control. and now you dont want division.. maybe just maybe you will never be satisfied

[RealBitcoin]

Classic Divide & Conquer.

so you dont want central control. and now you dont want division.. maybe just maybe you will never be satisfied

What? No, you put words in my mouth.

Centralization is creating D&C, I want a united bitcoin community in spirit, but a decentralized methodology with infinite nodes so that the risk of network collapse is infinitessimally small.

I want bitcoiners to be united in spirit in the sense that we should not fight amongst eachother, and respect eachothers points of views, but to not create divisions in these issues unless its absolutely necessary.


If the debate heats up a division will be inevitable, just like bacteria are dividing and then fight amongst eachother. A split & competition method can be only the last resort, after all we would all lose half of our money that way, and it's not in our best interest to do so, regardless of who is wrong ( 1mb vs big blocks)

[RealBitcoin]

find me the SINGLE node that can make bitcoin fail.

Misunderstood my point, i`m not really talking about technical sabotage.

My concerns are about influence manipulation and sabotaging people in bitcoin (not the network).

The development wave can certainly create trends, and if that trend is a dark trend, people will either resist it or go along with it: if they resist, they create division, if they go along then its bad too.

So it's bad in all cases.

[franky1]

Classic Divide & Conquer.

so you dont want central control. and now you dont want division.. maybe just maybe you will never be satisfied

What? No, you put words in my mouth.

Centralization is creating D&C, I want a united bitcoin community in spirit, but a decentralized methodology with infinite nodes so that the risk of network collapse is infinitessimally small.

I want bitcoiners to be united in spirit in the sense that we should not fight amongst eachother, and respect eachothers points of views, but to not create divisions in these issues unless its absolutely necessary.


If the debate heats up a division will be inevitable, just like bacteria are dividing and then fight amongst eachother. A split & competition method can be only the last resort, after all we would all lose half of our money that way, and it's not in our best interest to do so, regardless of who is wrong ( 1mb vs big blocks)

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.

[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.

[franky1]

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.

[IgnorantBitCoin]

I disagree with this statement. It is very clear the develoeprs do not have a sceptre in their hands, from the recent blocksize debate. Also do not forget the developers cannot push changes as they want, if the miners do not agree no change is made. Bitcoin is decentralized and without consensus they are powerless.

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?

[achow101]

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.

[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.