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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 Blockstream has no special control of Bitcoin Core-- except by being the _only_ company in Bitcoin directly contributing to maintaining the infrastructure.

Blockstream provides companies with the most mature, well tested, and secure blockchain technology in production – the blockchain original protocol extended via interoperable sidechains – along with one of the most experienced teams in the industry.

This is AXA's distillation of the message from Blockstream over several weeks of presentations and complex due diligence. Is their understanding inaccurate?

[1714712615]

1714712615

[1714712615]

1714712615

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Jeff registered this very forum.

Nah, the forum was kicked off Bitcoin.org in 2011 due to concerns about the lax moderation-- even I was part of that discussion.

In terms of commits: Matt and Luke predated Jeff on the project (by months in Luke's case). Pieter came nine days after him, Wladimir 51 days after that. I was 8 months behind on the commits, though most of what I do has never been coding-- I my logs show that I was the most active person in the development discussion channel the same month as Wladimir's first commit.

Characterizing someone who came later or who was earlier by mere days and less involved as "senior" is a bit of an insult.

Fair enough. I was just trying to expain how the author might have been justified in choosing those words. (I wasn't the author.)



Re: Blockstream's strategic alliances; I don't know if this is a popular idea around here, but I see Bitcoin as a public good. Are you in a position to reveal the precise nature of these new relationships? Are you inclined to? Are there contracts? 

^This is a private company. They don't owe anyone any explanations. Now get back to work, peasant!

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.

Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.

Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.

The former is signal, the latter is noise.

You're just butthurt the deep pockets support continued consensus more than contentious hard forking.

If Bitcoinocracy was in favor of Gavinista governance coups and contentious hard forks, you'd never shut up about what the "community" wants/demands/deserves.

[Lauda]

Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.

Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.

Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.

The former is signal, the latter is noise.

Correct. I don't think that they can be compared though. Consider.it let's basically anyone vote regardless of who they are or if they own any Bitcoin. Bitcoinocracy could be considered a decentralized voting platform because one can verify each signature themselves (IIRC), thus the system can't be cheated nor manipulated.

And I think over 51% of hash power is enough to present the major consensus, because that is how bitcoin was designed: With over 51% of hash power, you essentially control the bitcoin network consensus.

A network split remains a network split regardless of how many times you repeat the "51% is consensus" lie.

People will move to the new chain and dump their coins on the old chain to kill it in a few days

Not going to happen with a 51% : 49% split.

[achow101]

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

Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.

Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.

Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.

The former is signal, the latter is noise.

You're just butthurt the deep pockets support continued consensus more than contentious hard forking.

If Bitcoinocracy was in favor of Gavinista governance coups and contentious hard forks, you'd never shut up about what the "community" wants/demands/deserves.

IMO Bitcoinocracy, consider.it, and every other voting platform out there to get people's opinion are terrible polls and are vulnerable to many different sources of bias.

They are all volunteer samples, so really it will only get people who care very strongly one way or the other to actually respond. You aren't going to get the opinion of the average bitcoin user but rather of people strongly in favor or strongly against. It isn't representative of what the population really thinks and thus it isn't consensus

Those platforms are vulnerable to sybil attacks, though Bitcoinocracy less so. People can make multiple fake accounts and thus submit fake votes making one option more popular than it really is. Bitcoinocracy combats that by requiring that people sign messages with addresses so it really is based on how many coins. But that gives unequal weighting to the votes, although I suppose that is a better representation of the economic majority.

The questions asked in those polls are not without bias. The way that the questions are phrased typically imply one meaning or the other, kind of making people want to vote one way or the other. The questions should instead be neutral and bias free to get the most unbiased responses. Also, the questions should provide information for people to read about what those changes are actually for and how they will work so that people actually know what they are voting for. The information should of course be unbiased, but that information is not available in the polls.

In any scientific study, just having one of the above biases would invalidate the entire study. Therefore, since any online voting platform has those biases in them, the entire voting thing and checking those sites for the supposed consensus is invalid and thus should not be considered or referenced when discussing consensus among the population.

[jbreher]

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

Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.

Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.

Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.

The former is signal, the latter is noise.

No. All the above is noise. That's my point. The only signal is the emergent consensus of the network. The only vote that matters is the ultimate decision on who accepts what within a block. That majority will determine the longest chain. The longest chain, in turn, defines Bitcoin. Anything other than that is an unreliable 'measure' of power within the system.

[jbreher]

...

And I was so hoping we could discuss the following:

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.

So just to be clear - do you maintain that block size increases are necessarily "Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids", and are therefore necessarily evil?

Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough.  Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase).

- Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned.

For better or worse (I would say for worse), in this era of industrial mining, non-mining nodes have essentially zero power. Any viable mining operation has sufficient  resources to run a node of its own, and connect explicitly to other mining entities that share its philosophy. The only power outside of miners is the threat that users abandon the chain en masse.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Jeff registered this very forum.

Nah, the forum was kicked off Bitcoin.org in 2011 due to concerns about the lax moderation-- even I was part of that discussion.

In terms of commits: Matt and Luke predated Jeff on the project (by months in Luke's case). Pieter came nine days after him, Wladimir 51 days after that. I was 8 months behind on the commits, though most of what I do has never been coding-- I my logs show that I was the most active person in the development discussion channel the same month as Wladimir's first commit.

Characterizing someone who came later or who was earlier by mere days and less involved as "senior" is a bit of an insult.

Fair enough. I was just trying to expain how the author might have been justified in choosing those words. (I wasn't the author.)



Re: Blockstream's strategic alliances; I don't know if this is a popular idea around here, but I see Bitcoin as a public good. Are you in a position to reveal the precise nature of these new relationships? Are you inclined to? Are there contracts?

^This is a private company. They don't owe anyone any explanations. Now get back to work, peasant!

That seems a bit harsh.

[bearex]

Perhaps it might be bad, because they might work in their favor only. But it is more stable that way, so it cannot be altered by odd-thinking people.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Jeff registered this very forum.

Nah, the forum was kicked off Bitcoin.org in 2011 due to concerns about the lax moderation-- even I was part of that discussion.

In terms of commits: Matt and Luke predated Jeff on the project (by months in Luke's case). Pieter came nine days after him, Wladimir 51 days after that. I was 8 months behind on the commits, though most of what I do has never been coding-- I my logs show that I was the most active person in the development discussion channel the same month as Wladimir's first commit.

Characterizing someone who came later or who was earlier by mere days and less involved as "senior" is a bit of an insult.

Fair enough. I was just trying to expain how the author might have been justified in choosing those words. (I wasn't the author.)



Re: Blockstream's strategic alliances; I don't know if this is a popular idea around here, but I see Bitcoin as a public good. Are you in a position to reveal the precise nature of these new relationships? Are you inclined to? Are there contracts?

^This is a private company. They don't owe anyone any explanations. Now get back to work, peasant!

That seems a bit harsh.

It's a matter of journalistic integrity. He has the right to not answer, I have the responsibility to ask the tough questions. Do you think I enjoy this?

[sgbett]

...

And I was so hoping we could discuss the following:

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.

So just to be clear - do you maintain that block size increases are necessarily "Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids", and are therefore necessarily evil?

Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough.  Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase).

- Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned.

For better or worse (I would say for worse), in this era of industrial mining, non-mining nodes have essentially zero power. Any viable mining operation has sufficient  resources to run a node of its own, and connect explicitly to other mining entities that share its philosophy. The only power outside of miners is the threat that users abandon the chain en masse.

I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen.

Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant!

The industrialisation of mining has happened exactly as predicted. The mechanisms to keep the big guys check are still there. One of which I think is exactly what you describe the threat that they cannot do anything that would cause user's to abandon it.

Miner's and users are the yin and yang of the network. Developers and non-mining nodes grease the wheels but ultimately have no power.

The code's out of the bag so to speak. If the chinese miners decide they want 2MB, even if they don't use Classic, or BU, they could always just roll their own.

[blunderer]

...
I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen.

Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant! ...

Hate to agree, but ... That.

[gmaxwell]

...
I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen.
Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant! ...

Hate to agree, but ... That.

but ... that ... is just untrue; it reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what Bitcoin is. The design of the bitcoin system deeply constrains miners-- and doing so is precisely how it creates economic incentives to keep them honest in the other ways it needs them to be.  Miners cannot mine except in conformance with the rules imposed by the users of the system: it's physically impossible for them to break them.

[blunderer]

...
I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen.
Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant! ...

Hate to agree, but ... That.

but ... that ... is just untrue; it reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what Bitcoin is. The design of the bitcoin system deeply constrains miners-- and doing so is precisely how it creates economic incentives to keep them honest in the other ways it needs them to be.  Miners cannot mine except in conformance with the rules imposed by the users of the system: it's physically impossible for them to break them.

Both deep AND fundamental misunderstanding? Whoa, that's some bad misunderstanding right there..
Care to set me straight & quickly list the ways in which non-mining full nodes "deeply constrain miners"?
Or are you talking about the Bitcoin ideal (how things should be), and not the actual mechanics of Bitcoin?
An example of non-mining nodes "deeply constrain[ing] miners," if possible, would also be nice.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44rx5k/psa_clearing_up_some_misconceptions_about_full/

[blunderer]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44rx5k/psa_clearing_up_some_misconceptions_about_full/

Not a word in that link re. "ways in which non-mining full nodes "deeply constrain miners""
Sill waiting, still confused.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44rx5k/psa_clearing_up_some_misconceptions_about_full/

Not a word in that link re. "ways in which non-mining full nodes "deeply constrain miners""
Sill waiting, still confused.

I was hoping someone would tell me.

[BitUsher]

An example of non-mining nodes "deeply constrain[ing] miners," if possible, would also be nice.

Well for one thing , economic Full nodes are what determine what is valid and what is not. The Majority of hashing power and longest chain don't mean much except a very expensive liability unless the nodes accept the coin.

Bitcoin consensus is determined by the longest valid PoW chain determined by economic nodes. This means that not all nodes are equal.... I.E... spinning up 1k full nodes on amazon ec2 has less of a vote than an individual running bitcoin core with 50 btc , which is less valuable than a node on an exchange. Nodes controlled by Payment processors are more valuable than individual nodes but still only represent a fraction of the payment processing (Coinbase/Bitpay constitute ~6% of txs combined by their own statements)

This distinction is very important to understand, and understanding this is critical to understanding the security implications of the Bitcoin network.

1) BTCC recently deployed 100 nodes with altruistic intentions because they didn't understand Bitcoins security model. Since All 100 nodes were controlled by them they are weakening the security of  bitcoin as their nodes can be used as a Sybil attack.

2) All votes are not equal and very large bagholders can quickly bring miners to their knees and force them to switch chains by dumping one of the 2 coins created during a fork on an exchange.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

...
I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen.
Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant! ...

Hate to agree, but ... That.

but ... that ... is just untrue; it reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what Bitcoin is. The design of the bitcoin system deeply constrains miners-- and doing so is precisely how it creates economic incentives to keep them honest in the other ways it needs them to be.  Miners cannot mine except in conformance with the rules imposed by the users of the system: it's physically impossible for them to break them.

Of course greg! Of course "it's physically impossible for them to break" the rules. Thats why you change the rules, and then allow the nodes ( in the white paper sense) to vote with their hashpower on what will constitute the fabled state of zen consensus. Isn't that they way its supposed to be? Dont nodes choose the rules?

Not really constrained, deeply or otherwise.

[gmaxwell]

Not a word in that link re. "ways in which non-mining full nodes "deeply constrain miners""
Sill waiting, still confused.

They simply ignore blocks which do not conform to the rules of the protocol (and ban the peer(s) that sent them). If the block isn't valid it does not exist any more than a litecoin or a namecoin block exists to the Bitcoin network.