Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company?

[gmaxwell]

Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.

That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate. (see the hundreds of vigorous and dishonest attacks that inevitably are posted by single use throwaway accounts.)

Core development used to be literally controlled by one individual (at least entity ), first Satoshi Nakamoto and later Gavin Andresen. I think it may be more meaningful to ask another question: Is the interest of the Bitcoin economic majority well aligned with the interest of the company doing most of the protocol maintenance?

There was never a period when it was just Gavin working on Bitcoin; this is a common narrative people spin but it is incorrect.

I can't speak for everyone. But I own a lot of Bitcoin. Blockstream's compensation is setup to make sure everyone receives time locked bitcoins so that everyone at blockstream has an interest there too-- I am aware of no other company in the Bitcoin space that this can be said for... Not to mention that no question ever seems to be asked about incentives or funding sources for the people opposing.

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Even if there is no company, you can't rule out the possibility of most core devs suddenly go evil and conspire to destroy Bitcoin - They might have a better chance that way.

Indeed. Well more over, if someone were out to be evil they could just as well _not tell anyone_. I could _legally_ if not ethically be off working for EvilCorp and not tell a soul.  Based on what I've seen in this, people do a pretty poor job at asking probing questions. It's not the risks that you know about that are the most likely to cause harm, it's the ones you don't know about.

[1714722326]

1714722326

[1714722326]

1714722326

[1714722326]

1714722326

[1714722326]

1714722326

[jugador]

This is nonsense. This has nothing to do with control. Only 1 developer from Blockstream has commit access and that is what matters. Stop reading biased sub-reddits such as "r/btc" as your source of news (i.e. take the news with a grain of salt).

So Tor's development is driven by the US government?

Apparently.

It also does not matter as long as the technology could be replicated by independant individuals and hence serve other purposes as those from governments and corporations.

[MarbleBoss]

Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.

That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate.

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

[sgbett]

If the majority of the community agrees that certain commits should not be followed, they won't. Kinda how Gavin and Mike dug their own holes.

Garzik is reportedly now using the same shovel as Gavin and Mike, as he attacks segwit for no good reason.

I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens?

You'd think Classic's (heavy-handed, top-down) steadfast commitment to 75% instead of the far more reasonable (and miner endorsed) 95% would clue Jeff in to the fact it's not a serious effort.  But no....

If anything is far more reasonable than 75%, then the Satoshi 51% fork, dear Monero troll!

Indeed. In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus. (oh but argument to authority blah blah. yes, and anyone who actually groks why its 51% are baffled by people who argue it shouldn't be)

Anything over and above that is just being kind. Any grace period of X from Y blocks is a courtesy. These measures are already *far more reasonable* than the actual consensus mechanism.

Remember when organofcorti argued over some percentage point slippage, and everyone jumped on the fact it might activate with *oh the horror* only 68%. This is *still* more than consensus. It is still deferring power to the status quo. This can't be overstated. The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.

The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.

If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.

The argument about fake nodes only works if those nodes are miners, they would have to partake in mining blocks until the 750/1000 trigger is hit. Then as soon is that happens, and a 1MB block is mined, they would reject it and immediately implicate themselves. In a trust centric system thats probably a bad business plan.

[Victor Beckham]

But I own a lot of Bitcoin.

How do you define 'lot' ? 10+, 100+, 1k+, 10k+, 100k+ ...what ?

[gmaxwell]

In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition.

The other things you're talking about are fully compatible updates which users can voluntarily choose to participate in or can choose to ignore. Users opt into applying them to their own transactions, and they shouldn't really be anyone elses business.  Neither of them are forces applied to third parties.

In the case of Opt-In RBF-- that is purely local node policy, not even a consensus rule. If even one miner wants to use it it could not be prevented even if all the other users and developers and all miners agreed that it was desirable to prevent. Worse, there are already miners out there doing full replacement without the signaling. Without the positive uses being able to opt in and voluntarily choose to use replacement, we will likely see more of that spread sooner. So you have something that causes no harm, potentially delays harm, and is fully optional being used to attack Bitcoin Core? I think that is really lame. Especially since replacement of non-final transactions was a feature in the _very first_ version of Bitcoin that was only turned off much later because as it was originally implemented it was a flooding vulnerability. In people's zest to politically manipulate others into disliking Bitcoin Core it seems that some have really lost the plot.

In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus.

We all wait with abated breath while you go and cite that "explicit" definition for us.

It's nonsense in any case: When you're talking about the hard rules of the system-- the limits that make it valuable and tractable-- no amount of hashpower is enough to override it. Not 99.9%.  If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned. This is an integral part of the checks and balances that create and preserve the incentives of the system: Miners can't just steal a bit on the side, their power is very strongly shifted to either participate honestly or DOS attack the whole thing (in which case the users would presumably change the proof of work), but not attack the system while continuing to have it usable.

But really, if any of you have an honest desire to continue a conversation-- go convince the OP to retract the wonky and non-factual claim. Otherwise this is all just a hall of mirrors.

[Foxpup]

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

Explain how they are "force feeding" RBF and SegWit. Those who do not like these features do not have to use them, and, more importantly, do not even need to upgrade in order for other people use them. Old versions of Bitcoin will continue to work, and new versions get new features. Users of the new version can even downgrade if there are problems with the new version. That's what makes soft forks less dangerous than hard forks.

[franky1]

Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.

That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate.

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

dont forget to add "paymentcodes" to bloat transactions (defeating any positive segwit would have achieved reducing bloat) to hide transaction values.. which is more about breaking node validation ability.

i do love how the blockstream sockpuppets try to say only one person is getting paid from the $55mill.. but atleast i now see why so many people are sucking up to Sipa and blindly following his plan. (hoping for a payday if they kiss enough ass)

the thing i do find funny is that segwit archival mode (fullnode) data transmission is the same as a 2mb limit proposal. i find it funny that blockstream thinks that libsecp256k1 wont be included in other implementations to fix processing time.
then i find it funny that the blockstream crew want to force people off of bitcoin blockchain and get users onto valueless altcoins and security risk offchains. rather than doing what the real community want, which is to expand bitcoin (not blockchains).

i have nothing against sidechains, but the methods blockstream are doing it, are obvious to push people off of bitcoin. rather than making it a free choice to jump back and forth. this is done by no longer fixing the tx fee to a sub 2cent value that moves down in decimals if the fiat price increases, to keep transactions cheap. thus attempting to make bitcoin less useful for normal people.

the blind suggestion that segwit helps more people become fullnodes, is fundamentally flawed. most users will not enable archival mode and so when the 5000 peers connect together, not all of them will stick with being archival mode. as they are told "everything is fine compatible mode still works", users lose no function.. but there would be a lack of peers set as archival node to be able to get the full data to validate. (one of many bait and switch plans)
along with pushing part of the community onto sidechains, more users wont be using bitcoin fullnodes but instead running elements fullnode.

blockstream looks good on glossy paper. but in the reality of real life usage scenario's, all of those dreams evaporate and what is left is a incorporated bitcoin that normal people cant use because it has been outpriced with tx fee's and bloated with "paymentcodes" and other stuff.

if only blockstream thought logically that tx fee's are not even required as a income stream for atleast 2 decades, they would not be pushing for tx fee rise... oh wait they would, as they need the rise to push people away from bitcoin.

blockstream really do need to look at the genesis block message and remember what bitcoin was all about. as i feel that blockstream payday's have blinded people away from an open currency and swayed people over to the bad code and corporate strategy to create profit at the expense of controlling normal peoples finances.

by saying i want 2mb does not mean im in the r3 boat. i hate them for the same reasons as the blockstream corp. all i want is clean code that remains where bitcoin is the open currency for anyone to be part of.

a 2mb implementation with libsecp256k1 does not cause doomsday scenarios of needing datacenters to run fullnodes... its just that simple
if blockstream shills reply about the malle-fix. that too can be done in a dozen different ways too. without all of the hidden corporate agenda that would push normal people (the million+ population) away from hoarding bitcoins.

everyone knows that in april if they want to remain as full-node status, they are going to need to upgrade, so its not as soft as the glossy leaflet pretends. if you dont upgrade you wont be fully validating node. and if they do upgrade, some will choose not to run full archival mode, so blockstream will be cutting the full node population down. while not (longterm) increasing capacity because of the other features that add more bytes to a tx (after segwits promise of less bytes).

i see soo many bait and switch plans that end up pushing normal people down a one way street that moves away from hoarding bitcoins... and that is the thing that i do not find funny

[Jimmy Wales]

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

[Lauda]

I feel really bad for you dedicated bastards who actually put your time and talents into developing a potentially revolutionary technology, only to get shit on constantly by the ridiculous mood that's been overtaking the Bitcoin community lately. I'm largely a lurker on these forums, but it's gotten to the point where the noise is so abundant that the only way I feel that I can get useful information without dealing with overwhelming amounts of junk is to directly follow your posting history, Mr. Maxwell. So thank you; thank you to yourself and all of the actual development team that has done so much and put up with so much crap for the sake of an idea. I don't have the skills to offer much to Bitcoin, but I'll keep running a Core node for as long as it is viable to do so (which, best case scenario, might well be forever).

Well this is quite a rare and good stance towards the development team. I've said this before and I'll say it again. People without a technical background can't even begin to imagine the complexity of the development of certain features. If they did understand the complexity, there would be much less toxicity (aside from sadists and trolls).

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

That's possible, however the poll is unlikely to indicate such.

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

Explain how they are "force feeding" RBF and SegWit.

RBF is not forced, it is opt-in now (IIRC). There is consensus on Segwit; the only people who are against it are those who fail to understand it; besides it is a soft fork (won't be activated without 95% consensus).

[Amph]

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

they will have no choice at that point, because it would mean that their proposal is not well seen, and their soft work will be useless

if indeed miners and majority of the merchants are supporting more the simple increase to 2mb, then this is the way to go

[klm bitcoin]

I don't think there's an actual control over bitcoin development by such companies. if some developers are in their payroll, that doesn't mean it's not possible to keep the blockchain of bitcoin segragated from corporate interests.

[Lauda]

No. Bitcoin core is admittingly no longer representing the bitcoin community.  

Wrong.

Bitcoin core represents Blockstream and its investors. This has already been demonstrated as 100% fact.

No it does not. This is not a fact, this is (paid) propaganda.

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/694216384021139456

How do you define 'lot' ? 10+, 100+, 1k+, 10k+, 100k+ ...what ?

Those definitions are subjective, but definitely not under 100/1000.

[Foxpup]

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

Explain how they are "force feeding" RBF and SegWit.

RBF is not forced, it is opt-in now (IIRC). There is consensus on Segwit; the only people who are against it are those who fail to understand it; besides it is a soft fork (won't be activated without 95% consensus).

I think the rest of my post made it clear that it's a rhetorical question.

[MicroGuy]

No. Bitcoin core is admittingly no longer representing the bitcoin community.  

Wrong.

Bitcoin core represents Blockstream and its investors. This has already been demonstrated as 100% fact.

No it does not. This is not a fact, this is (paid) propaganda.

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/694216384021139456

How do you define 'lot' ? 10+, 100+, 1k+, 10k+, 100k+ ...what ?

Those definitions are subjective, but definitely not under 100/1000.

He's compromising on the blocksize.  The general public might be completely in the dark about who runs core now, but people that eat, live, and breathe bitcoin aren't as easily fooled. As a moderator on this forum, you are indirectly (at best) sponsored by Blockstream.

[Lauda]

He's compromising on the blocksize.   The general public might be completely in the dark about who runs core now, but people that eat, live, and breathe bitcoin aren't as easily fooled.

He's not. '20 MB urgent' -> '2MB absurd' -> '2MB fork'. This is not compromising, this is manipulating. A thing can't be "urgent" if you can accept a 10x smaller version of it. Also you have no idea why he left Core because you were never more deeply involved ("eat, live and breath" the propaganda I'd say).

I think the rest of my post made it clear that it's a rhetorical question.

Correct. My post was actually directed at the person that you've quoted, but I felt like quoting you as well was better.

[MicroGuy]

He's compromising on the blocksize.  The general public might be completely in the dark about who runs core now, but people that eat, live, and breathe bitcoin aren't as easily fooled.

He's not. '20 MB urgent' -> '2MB absurd' -> '2MB fork'. This is not compromising, this is manipulating. A thing can't be "urgent" if you can accept a 10x smaller version of it. Also you have no idea why he left Core because you were never more deeply involved ("eat, live and breath" the propaganda I'd say).

I think the rest of my post made it clear that it's a rhetorical question.

Correct. My post was actually directed at the person that you've quoted, but I felt like quoting you as well was better.

Wrong. You're putting up tweets from long ago. In addition, you can't possibly be an objective contributor to this conversation.

[Lauda]

Wrong. You're putting up tweets from long ago.

It is not wrong. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it.

In addition, you can't possibly be an objective contributor to this conversation.  

Said the person that suddenly started supporting Classic like a true 'forker'. It is pretty obvious to a few of us.
If anything, as seen on bitcoinocracy.com there is barely any support (from the holders) for a fork.

[franky1]

its obvious that the blockstream shills dont want normal people making normal transactions on bitcoin blockchain

I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

remember. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it.

blockstream shills dont want bitcoin to be an open currency for anyone to be part of. anyone who is against the blockstream plan is essentially being told to STFU and get lost.

i think the blockstream lovers have lost complete sense of what bitcoin was all about. they really need to look at the genesis block message and see what the quote was pointing at.

corporate control of finance creates crisis, greed and controls that negatively affect normal people

[Zarathustra]

Great posts, franky1.