bitcoin

[Prophet_Of_God]

bitcoin

[1714913458]

1714913458

[1714913458]

1714913458

[1714913458]

1714913458

[AgentofCoin]

...

Almost everything you have stated I disagree with.

If you think Core developers and Blockstream are the real threat to Satoshi's system,
then you have no idea what real threats are. Developers are external entities to the
Bitcoin system who have no influence internally. On the other hand, miners are
an Internal system who can steer or attack the network if they wished to.

When miners or other subsystems of Bitcoin become too powerful, they begin to exceed
their expected boundaries and begin to expand or attempt to absorb the power/authority
of the other sections. When that occurs, Bitcoin is fully centralized. Complaining
about developers choosing to design new tx scripts that attempt to correct vulnerabilities
as well as provide future capabilities, which may help prevent/slow the full centralization
of the Bitcoin Network, shows your hand and who you really are.

Voluntary developers, whether anon or not, is not really important. What is important is
whether Miners have centralized to the point that they will now force the participants and
the network to be a regulated and centralized payment system maintained by the Chinese
Government. That is what is actually occurring here. Placing the blame on developers who
have no internal power within the Bitcoin system itself, is extremely shortsighted and biased.

Your writing attributes "Oppression from developers" and "Freedom with Chinese Miners".
It is a very twisted viewpoint that most citizens of the world would laugh at without needing
to know what Bitcoin even is. The Great Chinese Firewall's existence alone proves my point.


-
(As a side for fun, the Universe is not designed to have opposition, as you argued.
When the universe began, matter and antimatter battled to determine what type of rules
this universe would be, and in very short time, matter won. Antimatter will never overtake
matter in this universe ever again. There is no universal opposition occurring as you think.
The rules are balanced and secured as long as there is no outside universal influence.

When this is applied to Bitcoin, the miners now have grown imbalanced and are attempting
to change the "universal rules" so that antimatter will have a retroactive technical knockout.
This is effectively an attack on the whole system today. If miners play blame games with
developers and hire their own who will manufacture their antimatter universe, those miners
will have manifested their own future destruction unknowingly. Developers (like Core) are
External entities whose only purpose is to discover issues and attempt to bring them back
into balance before the whole system collapses, while also implementing new features/
upgrades without adding to that imbalance. Any developer (paid by miners/exchanges/
etc or unpaid) who wishes to add to the imbalance purposefully because it is what the
miners want or an easier solution, is not doing their proper job. Those developers have
lost touch with reality because they no longer value security, but only profits and
ideology. Security and future balanced existence of the network is the only thing
developers should entertain.

If Miners one day get everything that they wish for, it will be nothing other than an
equal matter/antimatter annihilation. Bitcoin, as we know it, ceases to exist then.)

[hv_]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

[franky1]

blah

nope..
sorry but its devs that end up controlling things..

you only think pools have control because the DEVS programmed their implementation to avoid consensus and allow pools to be the vote.

however pools are limited by the rules laid out by the implementations .. these rules are programmed by the DEVs

..

in short.
imagine if pools with the heighest hash power all decided one day they would make blocks using sha-3

guess what happens.. the nodes reject the blocks
yep
even if pools had exahashes more than any opposition, the blocks they make would get rejected.

pools do not set the rules. devs do. and its the devs who have been trying hard to point the fingers at pools rather then themselves.

EG
luke JR programmed segwit to be pool initiated and it back fired, luke thought that h and his bscartel could easily buy the pools favour in the form of many all inclusive weekend parties.. but it didnt work

so then devs decided to make proposals of POW nuking, mandatory activations.. but then try to hid that they are involved.


..

in a better future.. what should happen is a 'reference' client has blocksize setting adjustable at runtime and the ability to download patches for bips.

then the network as a whole can just flag what is desired by showing what features/settings are enabled..without a 'reference' client steering in only one direction based on what the devs of that client think is best


EG
no more 'lets make a office word package that in 2000 only has embolden text, then later underline..
but instead a wordpad where you can have it all and choose what you prefer. and have the ability to download new font packs(smart contract script) without demanding of the main software supplier having to have it bundled in when they deem fit

[Iranus]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

One which openly allows people to contribute.  There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything.  The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now.

[Tazmo]

I think the biggest threat is centralized mining as things seem to be heading there

[AlexBessonov]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

One which openly allows people to contribute.  There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything.  The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now.

Couldn't have said it better myself... As I think someone previously said in this thread, developers are only "external" to Bitcoin. Adding more developers or removing more developers won't necessarily have an effect on the "centralization" of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

One which openly allows people to contribute.  There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything.  The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now.

Couldn't have said it better myself... As I think someone previously said in this thread, developers are only "external" to Bitcoin. Adding more developers or removing more developers won't necessarily have an effect on the "centralization" of Bitcoin.

many have tried to 'contribute' but found their commits declined because it does not follow the path agreed at the late 2015 BScartel meeting.

the only commits that usually get accepted by 'independents' are spell checks or minimal error correcting.

anything in regards to rule changes /upgrades, have to follow the BScartel decision

[icerose]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

One which openly allows people to contribute.  There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything.  The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now.

Compare the openness of core to say bitcoin unlimited and you realize core is the most decentralised type of organisation that you can possibly have.

[franky1]

a reference client should not be decision making.. but having a client that allows adaptability, and includes things as default when a consensus is reached.. not the other way round.

[Despacito]

I think the biggest threat is centralized mining as things seem to be heading there

All type of centralization attempts are very dangerous to bitcoin's nature. Bitcoin is decentralized, at least it used to be. Some fractions are trying to centralize it to take the power on but they shall not be achievening this.

[GreenBits]

It s called core.

What kind of core is not central?

One which openly allows people to contribute.  There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything.  The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now.

Couldn't have said it better myself... As I think someone previously said in this thread, developers are only "external" to Bitcoin. Adding more developers or removing more developers won't necessarily have an effect on the "centralization" of Bitcoin.

As stated, the true threat of centralization is the mining, and let's call it, it's Bitmain. We are about to fork because we allowed the mining to become so corporate, so monolithic. The cash grab that was early bitcoin included the asic race. After the dust settled (and friedcat wasn't there), Bitfury and Bitmain rose in its ashes. We embraced it, they sold us those asics as cloud mining contracts and used the front money to build a better asic (they sold us uncertainty). At every step, the community engendered this; we paid for the mining to become centralized. I think asics are the problem, but I think it's too late to switch it up at this point. People have spent GDPs building farms; the community will be slow to unembrace what we just got.

[AgentofCoin]

blah

nope..
sorry but its devs that end up controlling things..
you only think pools have control because the DEVS programmed their implementation to avoid consensus and allow pools to be the vote.
however pools are limited by the rules laid out by the implementations .. these rules are programmed by the DEVs

As usual, we disagree. Devs have no true power, since they are external.
For the sake of being as clear as I can, since the full system is complicated,
below is a visual representation I just made to explain my point of view.

As you can see, the developers are only one part of the Community Consensus.
If other community members wish to circumvent the developers, they could by creating
a new reference client (which has new rules). That is currently what has occurred with
SegWit2x. My understanding is a majority of Core devs do not support it, but that hasn't
stopped the other community members from creating and promising to support the
new reference client. Without majority Consensus, this is considered an attack.

So simply, Miner centralization is more powerful and threatening to the Bitcoin Ecosystem,
than perceived centralized developers. The reality is that blaming the developers is simple
scapegoating to attain more power for Bitcoin's internal systems by manipulating Bitcoin's
external systems. Blaming devs is like slight of hand. Security will be sacrificed for financial
gains and more power for centralized miners.

[The One]

blah

nope..
sorry but its devs that end up controlling things..
you only think pools have control because the DEVS programmed their implementation to avoid consensus and allow pools to be the vote.
however pools are limited by the rules laid out by the implementations .. these rules are programmed by the DEVs

As usual, we disagree. Devs have no true power, since they are external.
For the sake of being as clear as I can, since the full system is complicated,
below is a visual representation I just made to explain my point of view.

As you can see, the developers are only one part of the Community Consensus.
If other community members wish to circumvent the developers, they could by creating
a new reference client (which has new rules). That is currently what has occurred with
SegWit2x. My understanding is a majority of Core devs do not support it, but that hasn't
stopped the other community members from creating and promising to support the
new reference client. Without majority Consensus, this is considered an attack.

So simply, Miner centralization is more powerful and threatening to the Bitcoin Ecosystem,
than perceived centralized developers. The reality is that blaming the developers is simple
scapegoating to attain more power for Bitcoin's internal systems by manipulating Bitcoin's
external systems. Blaming devs is like slight of hand. Security will be sacrificed for financial
gains and more power for centralized miners.

Terrible picture.

[AgentofCoin]

blah

...

...
https://i.imgur.com/u1ZBS2i.jpg

Terrible picture.

Lol.
Personally it looks like an representation of an atom or maybe a Tibetan Mandala.
But... to each his own I suppose. The meaning is more important than the visual.

[clickerz]

For me so be it, as long as they  can give better direction for bitcoin. Also, hoping that they can give solution to this transaction speed problem which give rise to sending fees to be prioritize.Hope this body, gives a clear rules and future of bitcoin.

[CoinCube]

A benevolent creator gives his creation away for others to enjoy, not for his own self-gain or empowerment.

Eastern miners are expected to behave like greedy devils, that's what their ancestors did in the past and that's what their offspring will do in the future. That's why god left asia and the middle east many centuries ago.

You know for a "Prophet_Of_God" you certainly have a flawed understanding. God never left anywhere and the future of Asia looks very different than the Asia of the past. God is also spelled with a capital G. It appears that your analysis of Bitcoin is equally lacking in depth.

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
http:/e/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America

It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.

The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".

The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.

"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."

China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."
Like many Chinese churches, the church in the town of Liushi, 200 miles south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, has had a turbulent history.

It was founded in 1886 after William Edward Soothill, a Yorkshire-born missionary and future Oxford University professor, began evangelising local communities.

But by the late 1950s, as the region was engulfed by Mao's violent anti-Christian campaigns, it was forced to close.

Liushi remained shut throughout the decade of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, as places of worship were destroyed across the country.
Since it reopened in 1978 its congregation has gone from strength to strength as part of China's officially sanctioned Christian church – along with thousands of others that have accepted Communist Party oversight in return for being allowed to worship.

Today it has 2,600 regular churchgoers and holds up to 70 baptisms each year, according to Shi Xiaoli, its 27-year-old preacher. The parish's revival reached a crescendo last year with the opening of its new 1,500ft mega-church, reputedly the biggest in mainland China.

"Our old church was small and hard to find," said Ms Shi. "There wasn't room in the old building for all the followers, especially at Christmas and at Easter. The new one is big and eye-catching."

The Liushi church is not alone. From Yunnan province in China's balmy southwest to Liaoning in its industrial northeast, congregations are booming and more Chinese are thought to attend Sunday services each week than do Christians across the whole of Europe.

A recent study found that online searches for the words "Christian Congregation" and "Jesus" far outnumbered those for "The Communist Party" and "Xi Jinping", China's president.

[Hydrogen]

This OP is ridiculous.  

Plz dont respond to this thread.

It doesn't deserve to have 50+ pages with 500+ posts, which I'm certain it will.

Why do intelligent threads receive 2 replies and get bumped down to page 5, while silly threads like this one receive a lot of attention?

OP: bitcoin unlimited is the fork with a lot of elitist to burn on chinese miners to form a centralized body behind BU.

Core developers were here before the politics.

[Kakmakr]

Pick your poison - Centralized mining OR Centralized development OR Centralized Merchant networks and we can go on and on. We will see centralized control in any technology over time. If it has value and if it provides power, people will fight over it. We should just try to keep the network of full nodes, decentralized or the whole network will be vulnerable. In future all aspects of Bitcoin will come under attack and we should try to avoid centralization at all cost. ^grrrrrrrr^