Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized?

[Marcel666]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

[1714055614]

1714055614

[franky1]

satoshi left because he didnt want to be a point of refernce/decision. he wanted consensus to decide.

but bitcoin core replaced it and has been the thing people point to as the CORE, reference, decision, roadmap, moderated proposal route for all things bitcoin network

having mandated upgrades and moderation and treating other client software as the enemy that needs to be rekt or distorted as enemy until the only option is to altcoin those other clients off the network.. then its not decentralised.
claiming there are other full nodes is flimsy at best as they just blindly follow core

we need to get back to a level playing field where multiple pieces of full node full validating full archival software all have equal level as core.

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules. and then let the community separately on their own have their own proposals. where they communicate to each other and if a feature is good and wanted then all the versions add it. and the feature gets activated when the community of various versions all have consensus.

core need to back off with the monarchy mindset. all the core devs should have their own releases and all contribute to what the community want. not a small pool of devs who demand users blindly follow one roadmap and treat anything else as a bad actor.

if some feature/software is bad, people just dont run it. simple. but to campaign that there should only be one and anything has to follow.. is not decentralised.

core should be P-1 not p+1 (p=proposal). you know where cor is just the blue print of basic design. and others then build ontop separately

[alex_gr_cc]

Although creators play an important role in the life of each cryptocurrency, not only creators can influence them. Each major owner of a cryptocurrency can raise the hype in the media to their advantage. The market is very receptive to the news.

[gentlemand]

It was his contribution to decentralisation. That does not mean it automatically prevents some other centralising influence arriving. It does set a precedent though and something for other people to look and commit to.

It's a tad tragic how little effort is put towards it elsewhere to the extent now that if you want a Binance listing you have to provide some coin contact number in case of problems. That means Bitcoin would not be able to get on Binance these days.

[pawel7777]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence

Vitaleek Bulletin didn't quite 'express his intention', he: 1- acknowledged that at some point he will take the back seat, 2- pointed out that network can already function without him.

You made it sound like he's about to quit, which isn't the case.

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
...

Presence or absence of creator has nothing to do with decentralisation and/or legitimacy.

[gowobonyok]

yes it makes sense, when the crypto founder is absent, making the coin does not have a founder or who has the number 1 authority to control the coin.

[antonhuda]

In the article, Vitalek Buletin gives ethereum the confidence to be more developed, even though without it this should be better. Seeing this situation, surely the community is able to put ethereum better. I think it will continue to run well and have a safe value.

[pooya87]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin ~~
I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.

i don't see it that way. specially when it comes to an already centralized altcoin such as Ethereum. Vitalik came and created ETH and used it to make millions of dollars with its premine and pump and dumps. he clearly knows that the system has a lot of flaws in it some of which can not be fixed at all. and the system is doomed to fail eventually in the long run. this to me seems like he doesn't want to be around when that happens!

[ngm22585]

It was his contribution to decentralisation. That does not mean it automatically prevents some other centralising influence arriving. It does set a precedent though and something for other people to look and commit to.

It's a tad tragic how little effort is put towards it elsewhere to the extent now that if you want a Binance listing you have to provide some coin contact number in case of problems. That means Bitcoin would not be able to get on Binance these days.

Well said, and agreed.

[coinwizard_]

Decentralisation doesn't guarantee the success of a coin, just take a look at ripple which is vying for the number two spot. Litecoin survived without charlie lee and ethereum will carry on without vitalik

[Legendari]

I think you're right. Satoshi's absence makes the community more independent and, as a result, more decentralized. It seems to me that this is the problem of Ethereum now, because it depends very much on Vitalik and therefore cannot be fully decentralized.

[Dany.dan]

 Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized electronic money and central banking systems. The decentralized control of each cryptocurrency works through distributed ledger technology, typically a blockchain, that serves as a public financial transaction database.

[audaciousbeing]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

Being decentralized goes beyond a terminology but also being seen to be centralized. A system can claim to be just and fair but in the eyes of everybody, its just a term that is being used to deceive people for others to have their way. If Satoshi has been around, I believe strongly that despite the known fact that bitcoin is decentralized, it will still be subject to some conspiracy that there is some behind the scene control that is being done by Satoshi that would negate the decentralization principle which I think is one of the reasons that Vitalek is taking this position but I doubt the effect would be as effective as that of Satoshi because while Satoshi has been believed to be a nick name, that is his own real name and whether he likes it or not, reference would still be made to him till forever.

[erox]

I hope that Vitalik will indeed depart from the helm. For the last time, the fake news of his death brought down Ethereum by 30%! I think the publicity of the Creator is very bad for the coin. IMHO

[DooMAD]

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only...
core need to...
core should be...

Wrong as usual. 

You don't get to dictate what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works, Mr Authoritarian.  Everyone can do what they want.  You don't have to like it, but there is no obligation for them to do what you want them to do. 

[pawel7777]

<snip>
You don't get to dictate what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works, Mr Authoritarian.

And you don't get to forbid others to dictate/suggest what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works...

We can do it all day long, or we could stick to the topics and stop projecting shit on others.

[franky1]

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only...
core need to...
core should be...

Wrong as usual.  

You don't get to dictate what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works, Mr Authoritarian.  Everyone can do what they want.  You don't have to like it, but there is no obligation for them to do what you want them to do.  

read my footnote.
plus if you think im a dictator. i would be actually trying to DDos core. or rleased some client with some mandatory code.
yet im just saying my opinion. there have been many topics where you defend cores monarchy. i get that, you have a buddy system. cool for you
that doesnt mean others cant have opinions and call out the crap that occurs

there has only been one group that have actually acted with dictatorial methods. and you can guess who that is

if i see something wrong. ill call it out. but calling it out is not a dictatorship. its just calling it out.
im sorry if i upset your buddies, but calm down. its not like im the one that pushes out mandatory code changes that only had 35% community uptake before and after

[DooMAD]

<snip>
You don't get to dictate what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works, Mr Authoritarian.

And you don't get to forbid others to dictate/suggest what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works...

We can do it all day long, or we could stick to the topics and stop projecting shit on others.

Back to the topic, then.  Do you get more decentralisation from a system one where no one is in a position of authority and there's no way to restrict others from creating the code they want to create?  Or a system where someone is in a position of authority and people can't create the code they want to create?  The general opinion presented in this topic so far is that Bitcoin is less centralised if there's no one in a position of authority and I agree with that.

Allude to my prior post being off-topic if you like, but I think it's quite salient to this particular discussion.  My point isn't that I want to forbid franky1 from trying to dictate things (because he's clearly free to fail at doing that all he likes).  The point is that while he claims he advocates a decentralised system where no one can restrict people from creating the code they want to create, his instinctive reaction to achieve that goal is to wish in vain that Core was restricted from creating the code they want to create (which could only happen if Bitcoin was more centralised and someone was in a position to enforce that).  I honestly don't see the harm in pointing out both the futility and the hypocrisy in that stance.

Bitcoin doesn't have centralised development or a "monarchy", it just happens to have a particular group of developers where many users choose to run that client because they believe it to be the best code available in the current market.  Consensus hasn't been "replaced" and it's still the users who ultimately decide what that consensus is.  There are no "mandatory code changes", there are only the rules enforced by the protocol (and again, it's the users who decide what those rules are).  The only way Bitcoin could work as franky1 describes is if it was more centralised.  

[dothebeats]

In the first place Satoshi didn't want to use his 'power' to affect the network as he wants the community to come up with solutions of their own and let consensus pave the way for a better bitcoin. As what he always says, bitcoin is free from any central authority, and the community can always create what they think is the better version of bitcoin, hence why forks occur. Also, any 'head' of a coin somewhat gets the 'authoritative' status and any remarks/comments they make has a huge effect on the coin and the markets as well, so it's better for any coin to not have a central figure IMO.

[franky1]

doomad

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

its not about restricting code they want. its about the code they want IS restricting others

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

but look WHO is and look WHO you are defending
core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)
atleast recognise the difference and realise that you are not defending bitcoin but you are defending core.

in the last 9 years it has only been core devs and their buddies that have lead REKT campaigns. only core devs and their buddies that have supported mandatory activations and only core devs and their buddies that have added code to throw certain nodes off the network

as for user choice. show me a proper full validation, full archival, full node that is in no way affiliated with following the core roadmap, that offers their own community BIP gatway where users can offer suggestions of possible future features..
that does not involve moderated hop skip and jump(3 moderated venues to pass) to even get a chance to vetted into a client software

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

[DooMAD]

In the first place Satoshi didn't want to use his 'power' to affect the network as he wants the community to come up with solutions of their own and let consensus pave the way for a better bitcoin. As what he always says, bitcoin is free from any central authority, and the community can always create what they think is the better version of bitcoin, hence why forks occur.

Precisely.  It's not practical to expect every single person to agree on everything forever.  Forks are inevitable.  At all times users are free to decide which forks they choose to transact on.  That's what guarantees decentralisation.  Developers can't force changes that users don't agree with, because the users would simply use other software.  As such, there's no point in trying to place restrictions on what developers can or can't create, because only the users can give that code any real meaning or substance.

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

its not about restricting code they want

Then you're not very good at explaining yourself, because that's exactly what you've proposed on more than one occasion, including this one.  Or are you now retracting your "core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" statements?  I don't see any other way to interpret those words.  You want to change they way they operate, but that's not your call.  I'd say this if you tried to tell any other developers what to do.

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

I'd love to see some code you wrote, where is it?  I'll support and defend your right to create that code.  I won't try to tell you what that code can or can't do.  It's perfectly acceptable for your code to have activation dates and fork Core clients off the network if that's what you want your code to do.  Users will then be free to run that code if they want (a somewhat dubious occurrence, but that's not the point).  That's freedom in action.  Consider giving it a try, maybe?

core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)

Then why, over the years, have I also defended XT, BU, 2X, etc?  I certainly wasn't winning any popularity contests doing that.  But decentralisation and freedom means they were free to release that code.  So I'll continue to defend their right to do it.  Why am I always the one who is stating categorically that they are not an "attack on the network" and that they are merely filling a niche in the market if I'm such an ardent Core supporter?  I aim to be as neutral and impartial as the protocol itself.  As such, neutrality means all developers are free to do what they want.  

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

How would it be a level playing field when you are suggesting restrictions on certain devs?  Logical fallacy.


For the topic as a whole:

If you want a truly decentralised network, that means everyone is free to create to the code they want to create.  You don't have to like it and you definitely don't have to run it, but no one can stop anyone from coding anything.  It's something that's easy to forget when people propose controversial ideas or release a client you might not personally approve of, but ultimately, there's no way to prevent people from doing that without closing the source and making Bitcoin centralised.  That said, it's also worth remembering there are some risks to having multiple clients on the network.  It's a fine line, but things seem to be working out okay so far.

We have something beautiful here, so let's try to focus on that and not undermine it.

[franky1]

as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning

[franky1]

You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required

[Dexion]

it's a good idea, but I think, vitalek must keep monitoring every ETH development. especially when the market is bullish, because the bullish market is always a lot of negative things that can affect crypto stability.

I think, that Satoshi's decision left bitcoin to create a free bitcoin market cycle. so the market can control every bitcoin development. then utilized by whales, investors, and traders.

[Kprawn]

You obviously do not want a centralized dictator making all the important decisions, but people tend to look for a leader and I

think it is a animal instinct in humans. Put a group of people together (specifically men) and you will find that there will be

conflict in the beginning to sort out who the Alpha male must be. Satoshi managed to remove the need for centralized

authority, by leaving so early in the experiment. ( I do not think it was intentional, but it was the right outcome ) 

[franky1]

Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

[DooMAD]

Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules" as though it somehow wasn't acceptable for them to do what they're currently doing.  Otherwise I can't even begin to take you seriously.  I find that mentality deeply disturbing.  It doesn't matter if you now go on to sound like the most reasonable person on the planet, because I'm now stuck thinking your true colours are the ones presented in your earlier post.  Tell me that you give all developers (yes, including that one) your full blessing to release whatever code they want to, regardless of how much you might personally disagree with it.  Otherwise you're no better than the "REKT" brigade you claim to hate.

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

And don't presume to tell me what I'm thinking, because what I'm thinking is how much I'd like to insult you when you do that.  You don't do yourself any favours.

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

[franky1]

Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff.

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules"

im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it

my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way.

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

[dunfida]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

Being anonymous or not it wont really be the main thing for people or community would decide if they would support such tech it would always matter on its revolutionary features the only thing would differ is that when satoshi shows himself it can give out some confidence but he still decide to be anonymous and lurking somewhere in the globe seeing his own creation do stand without the need of his publicity.
This really proves out that bitcoin can stand on its own.

[DooMAD]

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse

And how do you propose "REKT abuse" be prevented?  Do you have any actual solutions?  Or just more whining?  You can call it out for what it is when you see it happen.  You could try to present a superior argument (assuming you had any ability to do that).  You can point me in their general direction and I'll defend the developers who dare to write controversial code, as I always do.  You can't prevent people from shitting on things they don't agree with, though.  Life doesn't work that way.

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?   

[Emilyp]

To an extent yes. If Satoshi had been in the know, bitcoin wouldn't be as decentralised as it should. It will look as if it is being controlled by one individual but by being anonymous and allowing the community to take consensus has really helped bitcoin.

[Maxgemini]

Sure this a key point for me. Satoshis' absence make Bitcoin truly Decentralised! Imagine if he had been here...

[solkinsolali]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

It has actually been a great blessing in disguise for Satoshi Nakamoto not to be at the scene at all. If he was known, people wouldn't have believed the concept of decentralization as it would always seems to be controlled by one man.

[franky1]

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

its not about my idea. its about decentralisation.
you think core being the sole BIP promoter and moderator is decentralised. and that just having followers is decentralised.
you think being a follower is a level playing field(triple facepalm)

wake up to the conversation. please learn consensus
you're concentrating too much on things like EC. as if its the only option thats not cores roadmap. there are many more. the point is not about segwit vs EC.. the point is we need more node teams that have their own proposals platforms so we dont have to jump through cores hoops of core roadmap or F**K off

Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?  

not true
1. other groups wanting other consensus didnt mandatory activate their proposals.. they never caused their own fork. EG only the core roadmap had devs that done a august 1st mandatory activation with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks to bypass consensus even before the NETWORKS rules changed

2.you keep saying "current consensus".. well even before the segwit code actually activated the core devs and buddies mandated opposers should be kicked off.. WEEKS BEFORE activation.. to fake a vote to get an activation
this was not consensus. nor level playing field

the consensus weeks before activation was rules other nodes and pools would still function and accept.. but the REKT campaign of UASF were not going to let nodes that oppose cores future from opposing cores future. and that at a time where the consensus was still the same.. where having a network split BEFORE consensus changed!!
try checking the code, look at blockchain dates. oh and it was not core opposers that decided to make their own network first. as it was the core/USAF that were being biased. other nodes finally made blocks on a different network hours later. because core buddies didnt want them on the network. even demanding they change their code from the pre august code to make the core opposers become different.
again core making demands and acting like a monarchy.. WEEKS BEFORE CONSENSUS RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED

3. again you say nodes cant get kicked off if they follow CURRENT CONSENSUS
again check the block data and code... nodes were pushed off weeks before rules changed.

4. as for "bypassing consensus" well search out bilateral split. you will see gmaxwell and others talk about it. different buzzword, same event/meaning.
as for "mandatory activation" well search out UASF.. you will see loads of stuff. again different buzzword, same event/meaning

im sorry that i dont use other peoples buzzwords. i use common words that reveal the meaning more clearly
EG i dont call a lightning revocation. a "revocation".. i call it a chargeback. as its a more common word people can commonly resonate to as to what it means. if i said "revocation" people would wonder what it meant. which then becomes a whole meandered conversation in itself trying to explain it

EG i dont call a heart attack. a "mio-cardial infarction". i call it a heart attack, yea doctors may only use the word Mio cardial infarction. but that does not mean there is no debate about heart attacks or that only im concerned about heart attacks because a search shows i only use that term. i just dont be a jargon spouting elitist to convolute a conversation with buzzwords common people cant understand, just to avoid common people from getting involved in a debate

5. in real consensus event you are still on the network. you just have data rejected in a couple seconds. its then up to you to push acceptable data. or remain on the network but stuck behind.
seems you have been misled by thinking there are only 2 options are follow core or make a altcoin..
again it seems you want only core to control the rules...

..
anyway. i do enjoy your comedy moments of trying to distract a decentralisation debate to take thee emphasis of decentralisation becoming lost since 2013 and just becoming distributed code followers but centralised change to code
and also the trying to make it a social drama of "franky1 vs core"
but the reality is the rules are controlled by one group and only distributed to people who only FOLLOW the rules of cores roadmap because those that dont want to just be followers but also offer their own innovations separate from core get REKT

you can spend all century trying to meander the conversation into a personal attack. but that does not change the data or history found on the blockchain and within nodes. that show that there are no other teams offering proposals separate from the core roadmap sheep follower hierarchy. nor are there any data that disproves that UASF was not a thing.

also i can find many posts where you are the one that has said if people dont like whats happened to go make an altcoin or go play with another network. typical BS response

[magneto]

I don't think that bitcoin could ever be truly 100% decentralised. That's just the case with all the bitcoin businesses that are holding funds for its users.

At some stage, you still have to trust someone to hold funds for you.

But apart from that, I'd say that the absence of a leader does probably make bitcoin more decentralised, and a lot more decentralised than a lot of other cryptos who have a leader who still asserts a degree of control over the coin. Perhaps Satoshi thought of this as well when he went AWOL, but that's all speculation.

[sunsilk]

Somehow that can be one of his intention why he left and never showed again but with Vitalik Buterin, I thought he's going to make it as Ethereun 2.0. Is that another coin or an upgraded Ethereum?

And with Charlie's absence after he expressed his leave to Litecoin due to conflict of interest is also the reason to make it fully decentralized.

[rosemary4u]

I think it is possible so but not always the case. There are many altcoins whose founders are around yet still they are doing perfectly well on the market. I think decentralization can happen even in the presence of founders of a particular coin. Who knows if Satoshi is alive or dead, I don't think much is known about this genius who created bitcoin.

[darklus123]

Based on my perspective bitcoin is somehow on both sides by portion. However I think that if satoshi is still giving instructions to the current devs. I personally think that we might be able to follow the decentralized path better than now.

I strongly believe that if satoshi is here until now it can never be like ETH. Because one thing is for sure satoshi probably has a different objective than the CEO of ETH.

[DooMAD]

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

And now we've reached the stage where I honestly can't tell if you're trying to deliberately twist what I'm saying, of if it's just a matter of you being too simple to understand it.

I'm not saying you have to follow Core.  You are a total moron if that's the conclusion you somehow manage to draw from my words.  Developers do not decide what the consensus is.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" if you believe developers get to choose what that is.  Users determine consensus.  USERS.  Do you need it written in brightly coloured crayon or something?

The users who secure the network either by validating transaction with full node software or by mining  decide what consensus is.  Your software needs to conform to the wishes of the users.  If you do not conform to the wishes of the users, you can be forked off.

But no, keep telling those fairytales about "bypassing consensus".  Some gullible noob is bound to fall for it sooner or later.  

Bitcoin is decentralised.  You're free to run alternative clients if you remain compatible with the code other users run.  Bitcoin has a level playing field.  Consensus cannot be bypassed.  Either accept it for what it is, or continue to have zero credibility while you've got your tinfoil hat on.  It's not a conspiracy, the users just don't agree with you.

[ImHash]

Satoshi made the right move to disappear from the scene, But people know that he still owns 1 million bitcoins and that will never change. He also owns millions of other forks from the bitcoin forks we had and will have. Having a million bitcoins is not gonna centralize the system. It is already decentralized because no one can stop anyone from transacting or mining bitcoin.

[gamechangers]

One of Satoshi's reason for creating bitcoin is decentralization. I believe that bitcoin will remain truly decentralized regardless of whether he is around or not. His presence may even be enough to take bitcoin to a higher level earlier than anyone can imagine.

[blueteam09]

Cryptocurrency aimed at decentralization, but this is unlikely. Rich people know everything is against the wishes of the founder. The rich are turning the focus to concentration. You are a small investor or go against everything if you do not want to become frustrated.

[SunGod-1]

It wouldn't make a difference whether or not Satoshi decided to be active in this space or not as what he created is decentralized regardless of his prescience, that is the nature of Bitcoin. Regarding whether he could influence price to a small degree if he were directly involved now, I think that would be a safe assumption.

[Strufmbae]

There are more cases like, pyramiding schemes, hyip in other terms,  that uses bitcoin and most of it are hunted by FBI,  tracing where it came from, and of course decentralization is better,  once there would be a situation wherein bitcoin will be oppressed,  there would be no direct contact to the developer. 

[bitcoindusts]

Satoshi's absence did create many positive effect on the status of bitcoin.  He proved to the world that bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous (an innate attribute of the cryptocurrency), he shown everyone how a person can use bitcoin without having the need to link your wallet with a real world identity.

And his absence made true the offering of bitcoin to be decentralized where no governing central authority is needed to keep the system in existence. I believe the same as you do, should Satoshi decide to reveal himself, we might not have the same level of trust with bitcoin as people will keep thinking that Satoshi might be behind every dip and every rise.

[Awoben]

Yes, I believe His absence gave bitcoin the freedom and makes it difficult to be targetted.
Not knowing the developer makes it free of government control.  If he was present, government might have tagged bitcoin as a dangerous scheme, knowing it challenges the way they run the financial world.

[BitHodler]

His presence may even be enough to take bitcoin to a higher level earlier than anyone can imagine.

You can't be more wrong on that. We firstly don't know if Satoshi thinks we're heading towards his preferred direction. Secondly, when he signs from the genesis block, the market will tank so hard that you wish he never showed up.

To some degree there is still the thought of people that Bitcoin may be a get rich scheme, where Satoshi's presence will only confirm their doubts. Everyone blindly assumes he holds around 1 million BTC.

If enough people believe that, you can imagine how severe the reaction of the market will be. The Core developers know better than anyone what's needed to turn Bitcoin into a success, and we're working towards that right now already.

[franky1]

And now we've reached the stage where I honestly can't tell if you're trying to deliberately twist what I'm saying, of if it's just a matter of you being too simple to understand it.

I'm not saying you have to follow Core.  You are a total moron if that's the conclusion you somehow manage to draw from my words.  Developers do not decide what the consensus is.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" if you believe developers get to choose what that is.  Users determine consensus.  USERS.  Do you need it written in brightly coloured crayon or something?

The users who secure the network either by validating transaction with full node software or by mining  decide what consensus is.  Your software needs to conform to the wishes of the users.  If you do not conform to the wishes of the users, you can be forked off.

But no, keep telling those fairytales about "bypassing consensus".  Some gullible noob is bound to fall for it sooner or later.  

Bitcoin is decentralised.  You're free to run alternative clients if you remain compatible with the code other users run.  Bitcoin has a level playing field.  Consensus cannot be bypassed.  Either accept it for what it is, or continue to have zero credibility while you've got your tinfoil hat on.  It's not a conspiracy, the users just don't agree with you.

bitcoin should be decentralised. but that requires users having choice. without fair open choice, its not decentralisation. its distribution
and dont cry that the choice of stay on network or F**K off is a fair choice. that is not fair choice thats the tyranny of apartheid, the tyranny of nazi, the tyranny of any corrupt unethical system

the implementations were following core
the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017
are you now denying the whole august 1st event even occurred?

now do you think random users got to decide. no. they could only follow because there is no alternative level playingfleid full node that would have survived the roadmap plan of REKTness that occurred with things like UASF and NYA bait and switch

do you even understand the word coercion
USAF: follow cores roadmap or node/blocks get ignored
NYA: follow cores roadmap or your transactions wont be seen on the network by list xx of merchants
swx2: follow cores roadmap and we (will fake) also giving 2mb after
anyone else that just didnt change to a core opposer node. just got their node defaulted to being outdated and not a full validation node thus not be able to object to the roadmap. they just became blind to it (dev buzzwords, bridged, downstream nodes)

core only had 35% desire for segwit before the coercion and code tricks.
even now the utility of segwit is low. yea even the then big miners that advocated for cores roadmap are still afraid to use segwit for thier own funds when they get block rewards
consensus can and was bypassed because people were blinding following one group. so that group got to control what consensus should be. they even went as far as lowering the threshold and doing the apartheid tactics of threatening to kick nodes/blocks out the network if they didnt obide by the rule of the roadmap

its literally wrote in the blockchain. you can actually see the version numbers in the blocks and the how things change
you can see it in forum posts, twitter where certain faces promote the tricks to by pass it
you can read it in he code of the bips and in the code for the supposed 'alternatives'

for there actually to be a fair consensus mechanism there needs to actually be diversity/fair choice

even the devs admit their actions. yea they cal it buzzwords.. some call it a unilateral upgrade (i laugh as thats a buzzword of centralism) some call it bilateral split some call it bypassing consensus some call it a controversial fork some call it by many names but by using mandated dates and threats that if you dont follow cores roadmap ur f**ked is saying core controlled the network as all roads led to cor because everyone FOLLOWED core..

users dont control consensus because they just download core because they would get REKT if they didnt.

the stats are there the data is their there. but you can scream it never happened all you like


anyway i know your trying too hard to turn  decentralisation debate into a "someones attacking doomad" social distraction. but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen.. the stats exist the data exists and even the devs talk about it using their own chosen buzzwords.. i am just simplifying it all that we need to get back to a level playing field of multiple choice of nodes and not just blindly follow cores roadmap
im not sure what your trying to defend but it aint a dcentralised network. you seem too core positive and obsessed with what core should do rather than what a open network should do

[DooMAD]

Tragic.  


Let's approach this from another perspective:  

Imagine in some alternate reality things had gone differently and users had somehow decided en-masse that EC was a great idea.  Then imagine they all started using a client which not only enforced EC as the current ruleset, but contained code to fork core clients off the network.  And imagine there's also sufficient hashrate for that chain to be secure because the miners are operating in accordance to that new ruleset.  I'd be defending that outcome too.  Despite the fact there would clearly be people who didn't like it, I'd defend that because the thing that made it happen is the users running that client.  It doesn't matter what code devs make.  The outcome depends on the users.  

the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017

By.  The.  Users.

You have to be running a client before you can block the connection to a different client.  The users had plenty of choices they could have made.  XT, BU, Classic, older Core clients that didn't contain code to disconnect certain nodes from the network.  But they didn't want to make those choices, they wanted to drop the nodes proposing a ruleset they didn't agree with.  So they did.  Like it or not, people generally agreed with the arguments presented by those who said "REKT".  You lost.  Present a more compelling argument next time.

but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen..

Who's denying it happened?  I know what happened, I was right there watching it.  When rational people look at these events, they can see what happened.  But when a conspiracy theorist crackpot like you looks at these events, you come up with some fantastical fiction worthy of a hollywood movie (or possibly just a story scrawled on a padded wall with your own excrement when you wriggle out of your straightjacket).  You're insane.

[alex_gr_cc]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

In fact, the market is controlled by large coin holders. The founders also influence the course, by making changes to the code. But any developer can do this. Approval of changes in any case is adopted by a decentralized vote. This is if we are talking about a public blockchain like Ethereum.

[veleten]

no,Satoshi absence has nothing to do with bitcoin being decentralized
with ETH and Buterin it is not the same,although there are some similarities: both have huge coin stashes, both created the coin
but other than that bitcoin is being developed by a consensus through BIP's
and even if Satoshi (if he existed and wasn't a group of individuals who didn't want to reveal their identities) resurfaced now
I doubt he would have major impact on how the things are going, maybe only if  he sells a huge portion of his coins or reveals a critical vulnerability that cannot be patched
and that are all negative scenarios, also I think Buterin is doing the right thing too, let Etherium develop without its creator's influence will give it more chances to grow into
something better and more decentralized

[franky1]

the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017

By.  The.  Users.

users didnt get a vote
only 35% of nodes were segwit. only 35% of blocks were segwit
users didnt have to change anything. they were told everything was "backward compaitble" which if you unwash the word twist is that old clients will blindly accept segwit without upgrading because segwit nodes treat the old nodes as second class(bridged/filtered nodes) the which dont 100% validate because how segwit mutates the data to strip it to a thing that blindly passes old node tests)

old nodes were not rjecting segwit. not because they loved segwit but because segwit passed them striped data to BYPASS rejection.

the actual vote was for merchants and miners
FIBRE stripped out what it didnt like before anyone got a chance to "vote"

any proper nodes that could reject core/segwit nodes would end up just getting manipulated blocks that were stripped to appear as regular old blocks with transactions that blindly pass segwit transactions in the block. or get banned off the network

meaning users had no chance

as for any pools that made blocks that would dilute cores required version flag. core via FIbre and other stuff could reject them easily... meaning the users wouldnt get them to build ontop off to cause some orphan drama... meanwhile what you think are "users" would accept anything either way due to how core BYPASSED it with the stripped block data and threats to miners/merchants


LEARN ABOUT THE BYPASS
(gmax buzzword downstream nodes..... lukeJR buzzword filtered nodes)

you need to read the wishy washy herpa durp code.. they even drew a picture to show it actually happened
..
seriously doomad you can spend forever just crying wrong because wrong. but it seems you need to read some code first and become shocked at the coercion that occured

you can keep on trying to turn a we need diversity into a franky vs doomad all you like... or you can learn about what actually happened from the source. i know you dont want to learn from me so i only offered subtle hints thus not appear as spoonfeeding you.
the data, stats, code, documentation is there. but its for you to do your research.

if not, no point you wasting your time being so defensive against diversity
i do find it funny how entangled you have become in having an opposing mindset to it while pretending you dont. but all you are doing is meandering this topic into a comedy.

........
as for the proposal scenario of EC... again your mindset is "fork core off".. thats YOU saying that
the level playing field would have had oppertinity of having enough node selection/freedom/choice where people select it. it NATURALLY achieves consensus. and nothing gets forked off
again your obsessed with things having to get forked off as the only option
(facepalm)
whomever told you its the only option. i think thats the problem you have been learning from those that are telling you a story
the reality is. if there was no true consensus. no activation would occur. if ther was true consensus. the it activates and life continues on. any node in the small minority doesnt auto fork into a new altcoin. they just get stuck unsynced at a block height lower then the rest. and treated as second class nodes

but yea in a scenario of EC getting consensus would be where core actually listened to the community and maybe done a
core v0.12.a - support EC
core v0.12.b - dont support EC

and for EC to get consensus people that love core and trust core would run v0.12.a thus EC would get consensus and still get the core dev team as their supplier
if a community didnt have consensus for EC. then EC simply wouldnt activate.
remember no other teams but the core roadmap team instigated mandatory dates and bypasses.

i know you were trying to poke a bear to set up a scenario of where EC supports would mandate activation.
 but using real consensus of a real level playing field the separate teams would come to a CONSENSUS by communicating and contributing to a whole network community of to find the middle ground where all teams find that happy g-spot where all teams can happily find pleasure from. without having to rape the network via coercion

[AlexAF]

Not exactly. Satoshi created the system and strengthened it in the market, then created a clear management and renewal structure. Then simply there was no need to control it as the system is self-sufficient. Satoshi knew what he was doing and not just left.

[taratorly]

How does Satoshi affect Bitcoin? Or Ethereum?

If Satoshi emerged today;
1) Can he increase the number of Bitcoins?
2) Can he reduce the number of Bitcoin?
3) Can he set the price of Bitcoin himself?
4) Can he transfer the Bitcoins in our wallets to his wallets?
5) Can he change the structure of Bitcoin alone (without the community's participation)?
6) Can he destroy the blockchain network?
...

We can sort everything that can be done centrally, like this one by one. However, the existence of Vitalik or Satoshi does not harm the centerless structure.

Some may claim to have a lot of Bitcoins in hand. The LTC founder also had numerous LTCs and sold them all! The market was not badly affected.

[project_delta]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

I am sorry but what does a person has to do with a decentralized system. I get you are going with it, but there is always next of kin. In my opinion, that doesn't matter.

[Qurelal]

I like it. This is the key to success when people control the currency. The founder of bitcoin has the right to be anonymous. He is a man like you and me.

[pat4cryptoreal]

In order to kill cryptocurrency, Government would have arrested Satoshi Nakamoto and give him or her some allegation or order to nail Satoshi if his or her identity was known to everyone. This act also make us to fill that bitcoin is our own. Decentralization also come from that act.

[Teawhalee]

I believe his absence has truly helped bitcoin so far. True and great project owners should really be anonymous. And that's the aim of cryptocurrency to give everyone freedom and security..

[adzino]

The main reason why Satoshi stayed anonymous and decided not to reveal himself was so that people would not be influenced by him in anyway. You will have to admit, if he showed up who he was, any decisions taken by him will naturally given more weight by the people. Many people will think of him as the leader of bitcoin (even if he doesn't want to be the one) and this will end up eventually destroying the decentralized system of bitcoin.

[bitcoinveda]

the main moto behind bitcoin protocol is meant for decentralised nature so bitcoin is capable to run without any owner  and creator absolutely true satoshi absence is justified for bitcoin growth

[aoluain]

Bitcoin is bigger than one person. We have seen something similar happen with Litecoin
when Charlie Lee stepped out of the project. Satoshi set the ball rolling and after it started
he was and still is powerless to control it.

[Kaan53]

The absence of Satoshin treats Bitcoin more, but Bitoin starts to be meaningless, and Bitcoin may risk a major fall.

[veleten]

The absence of Satoshin treats Bitcoin more, but Bitoin starts to be meaningless, and Bitcoin may risk a major fall.

jeez ,wonder how the hell did you manage to get 5 merit with this sort of posts 
bitcoin starts to be meaningless is something totally new 

bitcoin is and was created decentralized, it cannot be made more decentralized than it is already
maybe by redistributing mining pools % to shift more towards smaller pools

[MadaraAvenger]

Does Satoshi even existed ? What I think is that whenever the Satoshi name will come again in the mass media or maybe he will login back into his account or maybe 1 bitcoin will be moved from his wallet then the world will go nuts because HE WILL BE BACK !

[taguig]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

It does make sense Bitcoin could go on for decades without a central figure to look up into because the system is in place there is no dynasty to speak off, It really does make Bitcoin decentralized because of the absence of its creator it's better that he stay anonymous so he can protect his creation.

[Corelianer]

Only because bitcoin has no owner, it belongs to everyone and at the same time to anyone, without it it would not be so popular

[mcneLubB]

I believe that this has already been going on for a long time, because the system must really be decentralized.

[[ProTrader]]

Vitalik cannot step back from Ethereum because it will have a big impact in his coin because he is not anonymous like Satoshi. That is the difference if you are known publicly. You will become the reference if the people who invest in it.

[wangchagongcha]

Every Bitcoin-derived cryptocurrency has a founder or company behind it. Therefore, these individuals affect coin very much. Based on this, it can be argued that ICO and other cryptocurrency focus more than the community has to admit.Bitcoin is completely different. When Satoshi disappeared, he left the entire Bitcoin network unchecked. No central authority can reduce the usefulness, Bitcoin is really scarce and can't change the quality without the consent of all users.