Decentralisation is harder than you think

[LeGaulois]

@franky1

I like reading your posts even if I often disagree with you but you're too much against Blosckstream. Now how would be Bitcoin without it? A total mess maybe, what do you prefer?
Something I never understood from you is you still own bitcoins, knowing your opinion I wonder what do you expect so? Or you secretly moved to Btrash?

[franky1]

@franky1

I like reading your posts even if I often disagree with you but you're too much against Blosckstream. Now how would be Bitcoin without it? A total mess maybe, what do you prefer?
Something I never understood from you is you still own bitcoins, knowing your opinion I wonder what do you expect so? Or you secretly moved to Btrash?

im not interested in the altcoins.

but also its not that devs get funded. its the actions that occur due to their funding.
it would have been better to not have a single team of devs funded by the same group. especially when that same group then make a roadmap, not just for their implementation, but for the direction the NETWORK should take. thats my issue

if core just wanted to be a level playing field implementation along side other brands. where core would have actually come to some united agreement with the community in 2015 about many different things we would have advanced the bitcoin network alot sooner and alot more diverse people would have seen alot more diverse features implemented.

did you know that at the original late 2015 meetings if core actually held onto a lengthy agreement of then a segwit2x proposition. blockstream would have got segwit implemented sooner AND the rest of the community would have got more utility for legacy transactions. other features would have/could have ben implemented too... but no. it had to be the blockstream paid devs way or no way. which then causes the community divides

w would have also seen many businesses not get segregated off the network, we would have seen less coders making altcoins but instead happily innovating bitcoin under their own full node brands. bitcoin would have been alot stronger and more united by having more diversity

there are literally hundreds of businesses in the crypto industry (thousands, but some are home/hobby business) so its not that hard for talented coders to find employment. but when the main devs are all circled into one group. and the so called 'innovations' of bitcoin do not positively affect bitcoin, but are done to promote alternative networks designed to push people off the bitcoin network. thats where i have issues

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. its not a bitcoin centric network. its only promoted as a bitcoin centric network purely for investment by screaming the word bitcoin in the same sentance as LN.
LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors. (ever wonder why there was a november segwit deadline and then a sudden price trigger event right at the dates blockstream got paid a tranche of funding the same week in 2017)

if the devs were more diverse where their idea's were more independent and not controlled by some sugar daddy investor. things would be different

[franky1]

Also, sometimes their multiple facility system is messed up, for example blockchain.info shows block 535510 was mined by antpool two times with 42s timestamp difference. Obviously one of them is orphan and they lost about 12.5BTC.

'lost'? 12.5
nope
they just didnt gain.
no one expects everyone to win(gain), and then have funds taken off them(lose it). it has always been the case that only 1 person gets the gain.. so those who dont get their block immortalised are not losers. as they were not promised/given anything to lose.. its just a 'better luck next time' thing

With average routing fees far below 1 cents? I doubt it unless developer went rogue and change the code which force all user make channel to investor node and user must route transaction through investor node with high fees just to send coins to another user.

what you dont realise is that with factories, hubs and watch towers. thats exactly how things will play out
to even gt within 4 hops of an exchange you would have to be one of their customers which is using them as a factory
imagine there is coinbase exchange they wont want millions of customers direct IP linking to them. so they will set up hubs around them to take the strain. also because millions of users wont want to be masternodes and just want to be mobile wallet apps. they will use watchtower servers to connect their apps to



now imagine people deposit real bitcoin to coinbase. and then coinbase write offchain/unconfirmed 12 decimal IOU transactions with their hubs. and the hubs make (12 decimal unconfirmed) transactions to the watch towers and the watch towers make them for the users.
so now the users have "funds". (12 decimal unconfirmed 3 levels away from blockchain UTXO) which the channel parties can agree on, because of the chain of unconfirmed 12decimals all lead back and can aggregate back to a UTXO with coinbase happily

now imagine a green user wants to pay a blue user.
count how many hops there are.
now imagine red, yellow and purple are all owned by DCG.
when someone makes a payment they are not paying just under 1 cent once. they are paying under 1 cent per hop. and if it takes 6 hops to get to another individual. thats 5x fees for DCG

then because its based on factory funded channels instead of broadcast funded, to open and close channels users pay their watchtower and hub and coinbase a fee to close. all for the convenience of not having to broadcast onchain. and then coinbase, its hubs and watchtower then re-write new offchain 12 decimal transactions to allow users to re-open new channels
so those red/yellow and purple get open/close channel fee's too...(in other words DCG gets paid 5x fee)

...... or users can avoid factories and the inner branches surrounding coinbase and hope they can self broadcast their own independant channel open and connect to someone thats hopefully not more than 10 hops away from coinbase(which even so. they still end up paying DCG more than just 1x fee) once the payment gets to the fringe of the inner branches surrounding coinbase if the particular route has to go through the inner branches

its the same "routing" as banking.(in america the links between banks are called routing numbers)
town banks link to regional banks which link to HQ. that way the HQ doesnt handle millions of customers direct, but each town bank(watchtower) manages ~8000 customers yet the real 'value' is held at the HQ(fortknox)

in the UK. banks dont care much about people swapping banks, because ultimately its all owned by either Bank of england or bank of scotland
in the UK. phone line providers dont care about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by openreach
in the UK. gas providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco
in the UK. electric providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco

yea a few percent of cases will have independent channels. but when it
costs 10x+ fees due to many hops.
involves praying that the independent channels are online 24/7,
involves knowing it will cost you onchain fee's to closeout,
involves hoping the independent routes have funding to even allow payment hops..

eventually people give in and just play by the oligarchy game for convenience... and thats the point of their game

[figmentofmyass]

LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors.

you think they can generate hundreds of millions USD from lightning routing fees? at small fractions of a cent each, you must be really bullish on the lightning network's growth!

i only see a hub-and-spoke model developing to the extent that it's not cheaper to route around price gouging hubs. i don't think anyone will have that much success artificially pumping fees up.

[franky1]

LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors.

you think they can generate hundreds of millions USD from lightning routing fees? at small fractions of a cent each, you must be really bullish on the lightning network's growth!

i only see a hub-and-spoke model developing to the extent that it's not cheaper to route around price gouging hubs. i don't think anyone will have that much success artificially pumping fees up.

its not about pumping fee's up. its about controlling more then one hop of a route

when someone makes a payment they are not paying just under 1 cent once. they are paying under 1 cent per hop. and if it takes 6 hops to get to another individual. thats 5x fees for DCG

...... or users can avoid factories and the inner branches surrounding coinbase and hope they can self broadcast their own independant channel open and connect to someone thats hopefully not more than 10 hops away from coinbase(which even so. they still end up paying DCG more than just 1x fee) once the payment gets to the fringe of the inner branches surrounding coinbase if the particular route has to go through the inner branches

imagine users setting up independant broadcasted channels.
to have a network where 1 million users are connected involves
hop:
each node being a full node, paying onchain fe's to open/close. AND have
3 channels(onchain fee's x3) and be possibly 20 hops away (upto 20LN fee's per payment)
5 channels(onchain fee's x5) and be possibly 10 hops away (upto 10LN fee's per payment)
7 channels(onchain fee's x7) and be possibly 8 hops away (upto 8LN fee's per payment)
11 channels(onchain fee's x11) and be possibly 6 hops away (upto 6LN fee's per payment)

would you want to split your funds up into 3-11 allotment and hope that all the nodes on a route are all online just to spend one of those allotments and then still be left with the burden of paying broadcast fee's to move allotments when closing/opening channels

..
play scenarios out in your mind. or use some pen and paper and actually run simulations (thus not having to risk actual spending)
you will shock yourself how many people end up choosing the convenience of just throwing all their funds into a custodian knowing they get convenient service. without the hassles..

eventually people give in and just play by the oligarchy game for convenience... and thats the point of their game

also ask yourself why do you think the blockstream devs removed the fee priority mechanism and instigated the fee war and really are pushing onchain fe's to be way over 10cents and hopes that $2 fee's become the norm by saying bitcoin is not fit to pay for coffee($3)
its because of these reasons
1. USERS with more than a few channels and set up as masternodes wont want to get paid just a few cents a day from their few channels. so fee's would be cheaper than onchain but wont remain sub pennies for long. it would end up being USERS that push fe's up for their "independant" routing

2. the commercial side will, due to the 'convenience' affect have many hundreds of thousands/millions of users(check out DCG's portfolio of companies) so add it all up.
if a oligarchy charge 0.1cent per hop with a system of being only 6 hops.=$0.006 per payment * million =$6k a day=$2m a year

now imagine with onchain fee's being $2 and greedy USERS wanting to charge 10cents. as its still 20x cheaper than onchain... meaning the oligarchy can outbid them at 3cents=$180k a day=$65mill a year
and thats just from 1million users making one payment a day..... think about it
imagine if you wanted to trade on coinbase and then arbitrage to circle and then arbitrage to another exchange all via LN.
thats 3 payments a day. which is only going to be cheapest/convenient by using the commercial factory/hub model
thats near on $200m a year DCG get from just 1million users

..
i know what your thinking next.
if a oligarchy can make $2mill a year. so can users, but no
many users are not paying other users. most transactions go into services. and as i shown before. those services are walled up by their own team of hubs and watchtowers.

knowing an independant hop model of users is 6-20 hops. for a user who has a 3cent fee per hop to make minimum wage of america. a user would need to have 200 payment looping through it an hour.
users wont have the funding to hot-potato 200 payments an hour and then pay onchain fee's to shift around the allotments per channel

so while the majority are 'convenience' using the commercial hub model. hardly anyone would be using the independent hop model as their destinations are not close by/cheap to reach/funded 24/7. as the only way to get near a service with low fee's is to use the system the service has set up

[_Miracle]

"Decentralisation is harder than you think"

It really is.

I don't know what the challenges are for programmers in creating code but they will have to get around
our human instinct to "game the system"... even systems we agree with.
I would like to see blockchain voting---1 person=1 vote but it would need to be resistant to...
us humans ;-)

[DooMAD]

if core actually held onto a lengthy agreement of then a segwit2x proposition. blockstream would have got segwit implemented sooner AND the rest of the community would have got more utility for legacy transactions. other features would have/could have ben implemented too... but no. it had to be the blockstream paid devs way or no way. which then causes the community divides

w would have also seen many businesses not get segregated off the network, we would have seen less coders making altcoins but instead happily innovating bitcoin under their own full node brands. bitcoin would have been alot stronger and more united by having more diversity

Sounds like a bit of a leap.  And don't even start with your "meander" catchphrase, since you brought this discussion into the thread.  I can discuss points which you raise.  The above belief is all based on one massive assumption that users actually agreed with it and ran code which supported SegWit2x.  Even if Core had released such code, doesn't automatically mean users would have chosen to run it.  Like it or not, users are actually an important factor and can't be dismissed under the absurd belief that devs make all the decisions.  Also, I thought you said it's "not about blocksizes", so why are we back to talking about SegWit2x for the umpteenth time? 

there are literally hundreds of businesses in the crypto industry (thousands, but some are home/hobby business) so its not that hard for talented coders to find employment. but when the main devs are all circled into one group. and the so called 'innovations' of bitcoin do not positively affect bitcoin, but are done to promote alternative networks designed to push people off the bitcoin network. thats where i have issues

No one's disputing that you have issues, but businesses are free to do whatever they like.  Some of them chose to support SegWit2x, some of them didn't.  Some businesses are developing for Lightning, some of them aren't.  Some businesses are doing things you or I might or might not support and be funded you people that you or I might or might not approve of, but they're free to do it anyway because permissionless.  Businesses are not the sole factor to consider, though.  The crux of the matter is that you don't like the code that other people and companies are running and that's just something you'll have to find a way to come to terms with.  If things really were as terrible as you keep making them out to be, why are businesses, users, speculators, etc all perfectly content to keep running this code?  It must be a conspiracy, right?  Couldn't possibly be that they're happy with the path we're on.

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. its not a bitcoin centric network. its only promoted as a bitcoin centric network purely for investment by screaming the word bitcoin in the same sentance as LN.
LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors.

If Lightning does somehow have a detrimental effect on Bitcoin, users could (believe it or not, since it's just such a difficult scenario to even begin to comprehend    ) simply not use it.  Because if it doesn't benefit users, why would they use it?  At the end of the day, people are going to do whatever they damn well please.  That's the best part about decentralisation.  And that's fine by me.  So by all means keep telling your spooky campfire tales about the Blockstream boogeymen.  Some of us aren't as scared by them as you seem to be.  If Blockstream have plowed money into something that fails, it's not very good business sense on their part.  So perhaps it would make sense for them to make something that is good for users.  Had that thought ever occurred to you?

if the devs were more diverse where their idea's were more independent and not controlled by some sugar daddy investor. things would be different

I can see how someone might come to that rather strange conclusion if they began their reasoning from the standpoint that devs made all the decisions.  But, since that's not even remotely the case, anyone who bases their views in reality will understand that those securing the chain made the choices and ran the code that led us to where we are now.  Try starting from a premise that isn't fundamentally flawed.

[franky1]

devs did make the decisions.

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.
secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

so how about you get on with your life and do some research to actually learn whats really happening so you can stop flip flopping in and out of certain things. and then i wont have to yawn and laugh at your posts so much.

(i now expect yet another boring rhetoric from him or his buddies side tracking the topic to harp on about some other social drama.. so sorry folks for his boring interuptions)

[ETHICKNINE]

Who told Decentralization is easy specially in a world that everything even how we think, do transactions , what we watch or hear and any other essential thing we do controlled some how by some sort of organization or government so if we are to implement a new invention like blockchain technology that allow us to do everything without any barrier at the early stage the denial is not a surprise so decentralization in the beginning is hard but at the end when world starts to benefit from it everything will start to change accordingly

[DooMAD]

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.

The client you're running didn't write itself either.  Stop pretending there is only one dev team.  Granted, there aren't many popular dev teams, but since you clearly want to falsely portray the situation as some sort of dictatorship, then I can see why you wouldn't freely admit that other clients are right there for the choosing and it's just that most people don't approve of their ideas.  Because if you admitted that, then your "argument" would be decimated.  

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.  That's up to them, though.  No one is going to agree with hamstringing one dev team to allow others to play catch-up, which, as I recall, was an idea you're rather fond of.  We have a level playing field.  Proposing to make it unlevel in order to assist weaker participants is not how we do things here.  It's survival of the fittest.  Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.  Try having better ideas and more convincing arguments in future if you want people to create and run code supporting those ideas.  

secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network.  Clearly they did.  There were media articles about it.  The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that.  I will defend their actions.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.  I even stated at the time I had no complaints about it.  Everything I said then, I will stand by now:

No complaints here.  Makes rational sense and adds some initial replay protection in the process.  People in the crypto community are seemingly quick on the draw to label everything an "attack" when it really isn't.  Just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.  If there has to be a split, it should at least be done as cleanly as possible.  Everything about this decision is perfectly reasonable.

If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.  People can run whatever code they like.  You're still in denial about the fact that users made their choice and the only thing you can do about it is run the client you want to run (and whine incessantly for the rest of forever, apparently).  As I said at the time, "just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on".

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

I want permissionless freedom and I already have it.  More diversity would be nice, but not at the expense of permissionless freedom.  You want to change the glorious paradise we currently enjoy into some sort of "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything" nonsense and you can literally climb up your own backside because Bitcoin will never work like that.  Ever.  People code what they want.  Users run what they want.  That is decentralisation.  No one is in a position of authority to stop someone from doing what they want.  Just know that if other people don't like what you're doing, you might end up doing it by yourself, because no one is forced to follow along.  You can go your own way by yourself if you want.  If others agree, they can follow you.  Everyone has a choice.  That's the best part about Bitcoin.  That's what I'm preserving.  Unity is not always the best solution.  Trying to stick together whilst simultaneously trying to move in opposite directions is not possible.  It's like arguing that human beings somehow function better when they suffer from multiple personality disorder.  

Your ideas, no matter how good you might think they are, would absolutely weaken both decentralisation and permissionless freedom.  If you ever managed to implement your ridiculous ideas in Bitcoin, developers would simply leave this network and continue developing on another network where they'd be straight back to being perfectly free to code what they want.  And that's the network which would thrive.  You keep talking about "stagnating development", but that's exactly what would happen if we had to have some stupid vote about every future change.  I mean, just look at Brexit.  How much simpler would it be if those who want it and those who don't want it simply ended up on different networks and each went their own separate way?  But instead, it's a total impasse.  No one can agree on anything.  Nothing is moving forward.  Everyone is sick of it.  That's what Bitcoin would look like if we did things your way.

And... saving the best for last:

devs did make the decisions.

Yes, some devs made a decision.  And then some users and some miners agreed with it.  So it happened.
  
It wouldn't have happened if some devs made a decision and then no one agreed with it.

You have no argument to counter this.  You will never have an argument to counter this.  

People have to agree for a change in Bitcoin to occur (and if people can't agree, a fork tends to sort it out).  If people agree, change happens.  You can't refute that.  No one can.  Large numbers of people have to run the code in order for that code to have any effect.  That's how it works.  If you don't like how it works, too bad.  The numbers aren't on your side.  If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the numbers are on your side (and pigs fly), then you can implement whatever dumb crap you like.  Until then, keep screaming "social drama", "research", "bypass", "mandate", "meander", etc in a bunch of threads where it isn't even on-topic.  It's pretty much all you're good for.  Derailing threads with mind-numbingly idiotic catchphrases and then trying to blame others when they point out the myriad reasons why you're demonstrably wrong.  Maybe consider a change in tactics?  It's clearly not having the desired effect.

[franky1]

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.

after months and months. you keep on denying the same debate
that the main dev team instigated a ploy to push proper full nodes that were not following core off the network

you have become very boring now.
as for the second part of your post. you then flip flop to admit it. thus undoing your hard work of denying such.
so just stick with a flop or a flop.

gmax admitted he likes the idea of pushing opposers off the network
luke JR admits to being involved in it. there is no point defending them as if they had no part when they happily admit it.

atleast do your research on the falsality your trying to defend. also dont pretend that non-dev users got a choice in the mandate.. as it was all 'compatible' meaning no opt-in required.
as for the opt-out option. it was not a opt out to prevent activation. it was a opt out of the network.
learn the word 'mandated'


you need to learn what consensus is and why it made bitcoin what it was.
true consensus is not about 'forks' sorting it out. consensus is about if there is no agreement. nothing happens. no activation

learn how it solved the byzantine generals issue and how the core devs have literally broken down the consensus mechanism by bypassing it. and are now trying to say blockchains dont work
if you want to defend devs that dont care about bitcoin or the blockchain technology then go play around on normal database forums

but if you care about bitcoin and blockchains will you please do your research and drop your broken record. as your defending nothing by holding onto your echo chamber

any way.
you have become someone that does not care about bitcoin and you just want a social drama distraction.
so go watch some eastenders and be content with that social drama

[franky1]

Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.

core only had 35% vote. so they should have stopped and walked away with tail between its legs under their segwitx1

but instead they done a contentious fork to push out th opposition to then fake a majority.. and im using YOUR words so you cant later deny it happenend like you usually do with your flip flops of social distraction

I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network.  Clearly they did.  .... The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that.  I will defend their actions.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.  I had no complaints about it.  Everything I said then, I will stand by now

If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.

permissionless network means you want users to have no say. no permission to stop devs.
the DEVS wrote the code of the mandate they even wrote the compatibility so that it bypasses true consensus.
it was not a user decision.
you kep saying it yourself that you hate the idea of devs needing user permission. you keep saying you love the idea for devs to just write code and activate it without permission
atleast wake up to your own flip flops and decide if you want to stick with a flip narrative or a flop narrative and stick with one

anyways thats you wanting a dictatorship

LEARN consensus
learn byzantine generals issue

learn how bitcoin became a innovation which core has now eroded away and made into their centralist network with only 'distribution'.. not decentralisation

[pooya87]

Let's not forget that in its heyday, the operators of GHash.IO engaged in double spending attacks. Here is one such example. The less hash rate in the hands of any individual operator, the better.

that is completely off topic because it doesn't even have anything to any mining pool or having hashrate, etc. you don't even have to be a miner to be able to perform something like that. it is just the starter of that topic who is making it bigger issue than it is and linking it to GHASH somehow. otherwise it is another proof of how 0-confirmation transactions are not safe and can easily be double spent.

[franky1]

that is completely off topic because it doesn't even have anything to any mining pool or having hashrate, etc. you don't even have to be a miner to be able to perform something like that. it is just the starter of that topic who is making it bigger issue than it is and linking it to GHASH somehow. otherwise it is another proof of how 0-confirmation transactions are not safe and can easily be double spent.

which is why LN has flaws. and is to be treated as an IOU
its like writing a cheque that wont clear.
you cant then say you no longer owe someone something if the cheque doesnt clear, simply by handing over uncleared cheques

without using a blockchain to confirm transactions at the time of payment...your in a area of zero confirmationed/uncleared cheques environment.
even the LN devs admit to that issue.
LN is a zero confirm IOU environment and no way to guarantee a confirmation later

hense why i prefer to want ONCHAIN decentralisated innovation while certain people only want to ruin bitcoins network in a greedy method to trying to push for offchain unimmutible unconfirmed, flawed networks. emphasis on greed

[CryptoBry]

I think those 2 articles are missing out something in them.
Bitcoin and most of these cryptocurrencies haven't really been adopted that much by people yet. I must admit that the rate of adoption has been quite slow but I believe if very many people where to adopted and started using cryptos in their day to day lives. We would then clearly see a perfect picture of decentralization.

What we are seeing right now is a small group of people out of the whole world population who are aware of cryptos and are using them which makes it difficult to see the effect of decentralization.

The big challenge is really make Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general be adopted by the people massively. The problem is that we are still to see this massive shift and nobody can be sure when that can happen...knowing how changing is the marketplace and how many other entities are also fighting (and yes they have the money to orchestrate their campaign if they want to) the incursion of Bitcoin and similar technology. How we then can induce people all over the world to get into Bitcoin. In 2017 and even into 2018, there was this feeling that things were going into this direction but slowly things started to get derailed. Let's hope that soon this dream can start be materializing otherwise Bitcoin will just be one of the many choices people can get into and if there can be no clear and big reasons why they should then the probability is they will not.

[DooMAD]

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.

after months and months. you keep on denying the same debate
that the main dev team instigated a ploy to push proper full nodes that were not following core off the network

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it.  It was an open, publicly available discussion.  It's not some sort of sordid coverup.  You call it a "ploy" because you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.  I call it a pragmatic and sensible solution which kept the network secure.  I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.  More crucially, without the aid of a time machine, you can't change what has already transpired, so your options are either to remain butthurt for the rest of your sad life, or get the hell over it and move on.

true consensus is not about 'forks' sorting it out. consensus is about if there is no agreement. nothing happens. no activation

There was agreement.  Those securing the chain agreed.  No one cares if you don't agree.  Your numbers are insignificant.  Find more people who agree with you and then you will understand consensus.

learn how it solved the byzantine generals issue and how the core devs have literally broken down the consensus mechanism by bypassing it. and are now trying to say blockchains dont work
if you want to defend devs that dont care about bitcoin or the blockchain technology then go play around on normal database forums

but if you care about bitcoin and blockchains will you please do your research and drop your broken record. as your defending nothing by holding onto your echo chamber

any way.
you have become someone that does not care about bitcoin and you just want a social drama distraction.

No one can "learn" what you think you know unless they start from the same fundamentally flawed premise you did.  Anyone who actually understands Bitcoin will recognise that it doesn't work how you like to pretend it does and that's why no one ever comes to your defence when I'm verbally kerb-stomping you like this.  Start perceiving reality in the way everyone else already can and then you'll be able to figure out why your posts are so woefully ineffective at convincing people your fairy tales are true.

[LeGaulois]

Something I don't understand. Why people are only focusing on LN like if it will be the last innovation to Bitcoin and people won't have the choice to use it. IF it's a "cheque environment" then like IRL you're not forced to use it and it didn't mean we won't get a better alternative then.
That's what BIPs are for.

[franky1]

doomad.. DO YOUR RESEARCH

august 1st was a contentious fork to disconnect nodes that disagreed with wanting segwitx1..
(to falesly improve the % approval of segwit by only showing approval nodes/pools)

then they disconnected the segwit2x nodes to further fake the approval% of segwit1x

there was no true consensus of segwit1x because CORE threw people off the network to fake an agreement count


consensus is and should not be about throwing people off the network to fake an agreement
consensus should be about no one gets thrown off before activation. if there is no majority agreement then a feature simple does not activate

core got the activation not by majority agreement. but by throwing people off the network to get a faked agreement by counting less voters by ignoring those objecting

the nodes that were seen as not objecting were mainly nodes that were told were 'compatible' . EG were told even their abstaining would be treated as agreeing

any way. you seem to want core dominance and central control where core always win by deceptive consensus bypass techniques.

[franky1]

Something I don't understand. Why people are only focusing on LN like if it will be the last innovation to Bitcoin and people won't have the choice to use it. IF it's a "cheque environment" then like IRL you're not forced to use it and it didn't mean we won't get a better alternative then.
That's what BIPs are for.

BIPS that CORE moderate <- emphasis

the issue is that core removed fee priority mechanisms to force in a fee war where people are now paying more onchain. this is the ploy to advertise and direct people into being pushed to use LN because its too expensive to stay independant on bitcoins network

imagine the only transport route were cars. core are setting up toll roads and then offering a cheap bus/train network. thus making it real hard for people to want to remain having their own car, and then coming out with the adverts about how buses and trains are so much better and faster and cheaper so everyone should ditch ownership of cars and use commercial buses/trains instead

[McGrupp]

Decentralization is a spectrum... We could debate this all day.

I am not sure 100% decentralization is needed in all projects. I do see the 100% decentralization of Bitcoin being a huge asset.

Its kind of like the word organic. The definition to some people means natural process some people thing NOTHING man made can touch the process.