Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise

[Lauda]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

It started with Ver's tweet...

Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks.

I have not seen this argument being used by almost any BU supporter until Ver made the following Tweet:

Only a node that is mining is a true full node.  The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080

[1713492100]

1713492100

[jbreher]

Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks.

This is something I've been claiming for quite a while, I'm not aware of any tweets or anything, I just came, totally by myself, to that (rather obvious) conclusion by studying the system. 

Indeed. You may recall my first direct response to you was to thank you for stating the view that non-mining entities have no real power in the Bitcoin network - for the exact reasoning you state. I went on to explain that I had been tilting at that proverbial windmill for some months -- as a lone and ridiculed voice in the crowd. I had come to this conclusion pretty much as you state, after a loooong period of 'drinking the proverbial non-mining-but-validating-entities-guard-the-system koolaid'. Of course, you articulate the reasoning in a much clearer manner, which has helped to crystalize my thinking on the matter.

But really, I was hoping Lauda would step up to the challenge of providing attribution for his/her claim that "it all started with Ver's tweet". For I believe this to be unmitigated bullshit. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It looks like just another weak-minded aspersion-casting on the part of a party bereft of a logical argument.

[jbreher]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

It started with Ver's tweet...

Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks.

I have not seen this argument being used by almost any BU supporter until Ver made the following Tweet:

Only a node that is mining is a true full node.  The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080

Oh look - there it is. Thanks for stepping up.

Nevertheless, April 15 of this year is long after this position had been publicly advocated. Maybe you just missed it?


edit: went spelunking - below are a few instances of such a claim that predate Ver's tweet VVVV

Conclusion on Mar 20: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg18271681#msg18271681

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833166.msg18258671#msg18258671

stronger wording: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg18257263#msg18257263

This one is precious - it is in direct response to you. Mar 12: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1820846.msg18162340#msg18162340

Hey! Here's my post to dinofelis that I alluded to above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1820846.msg18155798#msg18155798

"non-mining nodes don't count for doodley-squat": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1752746.msg17602571#msg17602571

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1752746.msg17560211#msg17560211

Middle of 2016... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg15751668#msg15751668

11+ months ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14994560#msg14994560

"nodes have fuck-all to say about it" - more than a year ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393827.msg14308946#msg14308946

"independent nodes essentially fulfill zero marginal utility": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13895379#msg13895379

This one is fun - gmax using his time-tested technique of abandoning a convo that is not going his way. Feb 2016: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1352002.msg13788734#msg13788734

Well, that's all I've the patience for. Demonstrably, this point has been advocated long before Ver's tweet.

[Searing]

Well I see only one way for Bitcoin to get off the dime and somehow the devs of many flavors work out a solution to scaling

That is if Litecoin starts to zoom out stuff on lighting and other stuff now that they have segregated witness up

If that lever does not work to move these guys...I"ve no frigging clue

(yeah its a lame hope..it is all I got at the moment)

[qiwoman2]

I am so confused as to why the scaling problem isn't sorted. This might put off a lot of non techno lay people entering the Bitcoin space because they are used to dealing with cash, fast in and fast out. Bitcoin has huge value but all the DEVS and Miners need to get out of their own little spaces and really think about the common good for everyone to be able to easily adopt and use Bitcoin for everyday use.

[Sr.Urbanist]

I am so confused as to why the scaling problem isn't sorted.

To use an analogy, some people want to stay at 1MB blocks due to bandwidth and hard-drive.  If it takes a long time to download the blockchain, then there will be fewer nodes (the story goes).  However, I remember when I paid $350 for a 1.2MP camera.  It even came with a 512MB memory stick.  I, also, had a cell phone and would dial in to Napster at night (theoretically of course) so I could get 8 songs by morning. Now ... I can stream HD, my camera has a higher resolution camera and I carry around 64GB attached to my key-chain.  Locking in at 1MB does not make sense, just as keeping cameras at 1.2MP did not make sense.

It's the process of mining that keeps the network safe.  It consumes energy and the miners are rewarded for protecting the network with 12.5BTC per 10 minutes.  This is divided and among all those who provided hash power towards solving the equation, unless solo mining.

[dinofelis]

I am so confused as to why the scaling problem isn't sorted. This might put off a lot of non techno lay people entering the Bitcoin space because they are used to dealing with cash, fast in and fast out. Bitcoin has huge value but all the DEVS and Miners need to get out of their own little spaces and really think about the common good for everyone to be able to easily adopt and use Bitcoin for everyday use.

This is one of the funny things in bitcoin: decentralization.  No boss, no hierarchy, no pilot in the plane.  Bitcoin was designed to guarantee (up to a level) that nobody could easily "cheat" ; that is, that nobody in the system could decide, upon his own, to change things, and *not respect the rules*.  Of course, in the beginning, this was not really true: when Satoshi was still the boss, he changed the rules several times.  However, these were "technical" rules.  His self-appointed heirs, the Core dev team, was in fact the only team taking over the development of the code implementing Satoshi's system when he disappeared.  So they have been the "boss" quite a while, and they too, did change quite a lot of technical details.  But none of these affected people (most of them weren't used in fact).  So people let them play and change rules for a while.

There was a ticking bomb that Satoshi himself had put into the bitcoin rules, and which people, back then, warned him about: the block size limit.  Satoshi publicly considered that this limit could easily be removed or changed if ever it was considered reasonable, but people pointed out to him that this was risky: after all, small blocks will make for high fees, and miners will like high fees.  As they are the ones that actually implement the protocol, they might, in fact, seriously hesitate to change it.

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN, so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain.  And they went on telling everywhere how supposedly dangerous it was to go beyond 1 MB blocks.

In the mean time, people were looking also to just do what Satoshi suggested, namely increasing the block size, so that more transactions could go on, but Core resisted, most probably thinking that if they gave in to increase the block size, the utility of their Lightning Network would remain theoretical, and people would always ask for more and more space on the block chain.  By doing so, some "resistance" appeared, that didn't consider Core's central control over bitcoin's rules as "natural".  

This is how Core lost its position as central decider on bitcoin's protocol, so now there is not really a central authority any more.

Once this central authority is gone from bitcoin, it being a decentralized system without "boss" that decides, and its design being such that if you deviate from the rules, you are essentially rejected by the system, nobody can actually really change anything any more, without risking to be rejected and losing a lot of value.  Bitcoin's system is entirely focussed on "no deviation from majority possible", and the majority is de facto the old rule system.  The first one that tries something else, and is not immediately certain of being followed by 70% of the others, will most probably lose all efforts in doing so: bitcoin was made that way.  If there was a central boss that decided for everybody, that would be quite easy.  But right now, with no very clear majority for ONE specific solution, it seems to be locked in to its current protocol.  And IF there is a central boss, then it isn't decentralized any more, which is its main selling point.

As such, it is difficult to see how bitcoin can still change what so ever to its rules.

[Sr.Urbanist]

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN, so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain.  And they went on telling everywhere how supposedly dangerous it was to go beyond 1 MB blocks.

Nice summary.

[spartacusrex]

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN would make it impossible for normal users to run a full node , so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain save Bitcoin from those who do not understand the subtleties of the Bitcoin Security Model.

FTFY..

[25hashcoin]

Segwit is the compromose and best way foreward. Ask why Bitmain  and his paid off cronies want to strangle bitcoin use and development.

#UASF

[The One]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that. For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago.  And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH.  Everyone knows 2MB would be fine.  Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities.

Gavin is a really nice guy but I've read a lot of his stuff on here and IMO he's naive when it comes to risks. Funny cause I read a comment he made about that somewhere as apparently others have made the same observation. As I said. IMO 2Mb was a no brainer and I have an issue with  core taking a "no hard fork" stance (at least yet as they haven't taken bigger blocks off the table). But when I compare the two from a technical and risk standpoint, I'm forced to go with core. Not because I really want to but because the alternative is far less acceptable to me. And to be clear, I really don't like certain personalities on either side.

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

That's a flawed conclusion. If both are not to your liking then both must be rejected. As i have. Thus both must start again, unless new developers want to make a better proposal. Anyone here, you and me, can do that. But does anyone ever care to listen to any proposals outside the developers inner circle?

[Viper1]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that. For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago.  And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH.  Everyone knows 2MB would be fine.  Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities.

Gavin is a really nice guy but I've read a lot of his stuff on here and IMO he's naive when it comes to risks. Funny cause I read a comment he made about that somewhere as apparently others have made the same observation. As I said. IMO 2Mb was a no brainer and I have an issue with  core taking a "no hard fork" stance (at least yet as they haven't taken bigger blocks off the table). But when I compare the two from a technical and risk standpoint, I'm forced to go with core. Not because I really want to but because the alternative is far less acceptable to me. And to be clear, I really don't like certain personalities on either side.

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

That's a flawed conclusion. If both are not to your liking then both must be rejected.

It's called compromise and the lesser of two evils. The hard reality is that when it comes to this sort of thing, there are no black and white perfect solutions. It's all just compromises and levels of risk. So you can choose to not make a choice and wait for some other solution. But it won't be perfect and would require compromises anyway.

[classicsucks]

His self-appointed heirs, the Core dev team, was in fact the only team taking over the development of the code implementing Satoshi's system when he disappeared.  So they have been the "boss" quite a while, and they too, did change quite a lot of technical details.  But none of these affected people (most of them weren't used in fact).  So people let them play and change rules for a while.

There was a ticking bomb that Satoshi himself had put into the bitcoin rules, and which people, back then, warned him about: the block size limit.  Satoshi publicly considered that this limit could easily be removed or changed if ever it was considered reasonable, but people pointed out to him that this was risky: after all, small blocks will make for high fees, and miners will like high fees.  As they are the ones that actually implement the protocol, they might, in fact, seriously hesitate to change it.

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN, so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain.  And they went on telling everywhere how supposedly dangerous it was to go beyond 1 MB blocks.

This is how Core lost its position as central decider on bitcoin's protocol, so now there is not really a central authority any more.

Just a few things to add here - the Core dev team went through a series of coups and power plays, and many good devs (including Satoshi's closest confidant, Gavin) were forced off the team, with dirty tricks from a nasty new breed of devs. Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik were also important losses from the team. Many of the remaining dev team members are employees of a privately held corporation, Blockstream, which has demonstrated their intent to make bitcoin a settlement-layer solution for their patented Lightning network.

[dinofelis]

His self-appointed heirs, the Core dev team, was in fact the only team taking over the development of the code implementing Satoshi's system when he disappeared.  So they have been the "boss" quite a while, and they too, did change quite a lot of technical details.  But none of these affected people (most of them weren't used in fact).  So people let them play and change rules for a while.

There was a ticking bomb that Satoshi himself had put into the bitcoin rules, and which people, back then, warned him about: the block size limit.  Satoshi publicly considered that this limit could easily be removed or changed if ever it was considered reasonable, but people pointed out to him that this was risky: after all, small blocks will make for high fees, and miners will like high fees.  As they are the ones that actually implement the protocol, they might, in fact, seriously hesitate to change it.

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN, so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain.  And they went on telling everywhere how supposedly dangerous it was to go beyond 1 MB blocks.

This is how Core lost its position as central decider on bitcoin's protocol, so now there is not really a central authority any more.

Just a few things to add here - the Core dev team went through a series of coups and power plays, and many good devs (including Satoshi's closest confidant, Gavin) were forced off the team, with dirty tricks from a nasty new breed of devs. Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik were also important losses from the team. Many of the remaining dev team members are employees of a privately held corporation, Blockstream, which has demonstrated their intent to make bitcoin a settlement-layer solution for their patented Lightning network.

Contrary to what some may think here, I have nothing against Core.   After all, in a trustless, distributed system, everybody can do what he wants, and Core has the right, just as well as anyone else, to try to set the system to their hand or religion - that's the whole idea, that nobody is to be trusted, and anybody is allowed to do just anything, the system will cope or will fail.

What I wanted to argue was that bitcoin WAS a centralized system with a centralized authority, Core, which did make it possible in the past to apply (modest) changes.  However, what Core simply did, was overplay their hand, and as such, they lost their centralized moral power over the system.  And now, the system got decentralized and hence became immutable.  This is not eternal.  It can sufficiently centralize again to find again a central authority, that will dictate change.  But for the moment, Core lost that position of central trusted authority.    A truly decentralized system is immutable.   So if it changes its protocol, it is of course centralized with a central, trusted authority.  Litecoin is.  Most alt coins are, and bitcoin was centralized until Core overplayed its hand, and the mining pools are not centralized enough as of today, to be able to have a quick decision under the leadership of one single boss (or if they are, that boss has decided to stick with the old bitcoin protocol - both are of course indistinguishable).

[dinofelis]

At a certain point, Core proposed some quite radical changes to bitcoin.  It goes under the name of Segwit.  It are a lot of technical improvements, a quite radical change of how the block chain is built, and in fact, also a preparation of a totally new way of transacting: the "Lightning Network".   The Lightning Network is an idea that could in principle allow one to use bitcoin transactions without writing them on the chain - only when you are scammed or your partners disappear, you could always "come back" to settle on the chain.  As such, Core considered that increasing the block chain was not going to motivate people on the LN would make it impossible for normal users to run a full node , so they thought that it was a good idea to keep bitcoin's block chain small, and somehow force people off chain save Bitcoin from those who do not understand the subtleties of the Bitcoin Security Model.

FTFY..

Visibly those subtleties are so subtle, that they can never be rationally argued, and can never contradict a logical gedanken experiment of the opposite.  Subtle is the Lord, probably, but is the Lord actually ?

[The One]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that. For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago.  And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH.  Everyone knows 2MB would be fine.  Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities.

Gavin is a really nice guy but I've read a lot of his stuff on here and IMO he's naive when it comes to risks. Funny cause I read a comment he made about that somewhere as apparently others have made the same observation. As I said. IMO 2Mb was a no brainer and I have an issue with  core taking a "no hard fork" stance (at least yet as they haven't taken bigger blocks off the table). But when I compare the two from a technical and risk standpoint, I'm forced to go with core. Not because I really want to but because the alternative is far less acceptable to me. And to be clear, I really don't like certain personalities on either side.

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

That's a flawed conclusion. If both are not to your liking then both must be rejected.

It's called compromise and the lesser of two evils. The hard reality is that when it comes to this sort of thing, there are no black and white perfect solutions. It's all just compromises and levels of risk. So you can choose to not make a choice and wait for some other solution. But it won't be perfect and would require compromises anyway.

Compromise on security of the network, future mining fees to secure the network, technical debt by adopting segwit in its current form - no thanks. Compromising when $30bn dollars invested in Bitcoin is plain idiotic. One either gets it right or not. If a mistake is made can it be reversed? If no then no compromise can be made.

[Viper1]

Compromise on security of the network

Nothing more than opinions one way or the other.

future mining fees to secure the network

You don't want bitcoin then since that was the plan from day 1. Or maybe you haven't read all the emails/posts etc from back then. Why would any miner support the network once the reward gets close to zero without fees to make up for that?

One either gets it right or not. If a mistake is made can it be reversed?

I don't know what world you live in, but everything we develop/code and every little change that's made is a risk and the outcome one "thinks" will happen is made up of a bunch of assumptions and as much testing and scientific proof one can do. Despite that, there is never any guarantee.

[The One]

Compromise on security of the network

Nothing more than opinions one way or the other.

future mining fees to secure the network

You don't want bitcoin then since that was the plan from day 1. Or maybe you haven't read all the emails/posts etc from back then. Why would any miner support the network once the reward gets close to zero without fees to make up for that?

One either gets it right or not. If a mistake is made can it be reversed?

I don't know what world you live in, but everything we develop/code and every little change that's made is a risk and the outcome one "thinks" will happen is made up of a bunch of assumptions and as much testing and scientific proof one can do. Despite that, there is never any guarantee.

You misunderstood me. That's precisely what LN will do - take fees away from the miners thus reducing security in the future.


The real world.

Segwit is not a "little change."
Raising the blocksize to 2mb now, then 4mb by the end of the year is what i call "little change" that can be observed, debated on and possibly reversed if it becomes a disaster. However it will be successfully sufficient to take the risk vs. the outcome of possible increase in spam. In the meantime, Capacity goes up, possible small increase in scaling. Higher scaling can be researched into until a "bright spark" comes up with a better idea.

[iluvpie60]

Well when the price drops and less people use it because it is expensive they will need to compromise. They will eventually. Miners will eventually. Other coins are taking off and people will start to switch.

I am going to sell some digital goods here and if i make someone pay me in btc its gonna cost them an extra dollar fee for no reason.

[DooMAD]

Everyone keeps using the word "compromise", but no one is actually budging on their stance.  Most of the people fixated on increasing the blocksize still want an increase of at least 200% and most of the people fixated on not touching the 'base' blocksize still want 0% increase until an unspecified time in the future.  

It seems obvious when you say it, but apparently it has to be spelled out in no uncertain terms:  An actual compromise would require both camps to soften their stance a little.  Is anyone prepared to do that?  Stop drawing lines in the sand over what you won't accept and start talking about what you will accept.  And for what must be the dozenth time, the blocksize doesn't have to be a whole number and nor does it have to be static.