Decentralisation is harder than you think

[Pab]

I can say that decentralization of cryptocurrencies has been hurt by big mining pools
Over 50% of Ethereum supply is controlled by two big mining pools from China
Ripple is pure premine
From all of that crypto blue chips bitcoin is most decentralized
I have been reading that Amazon can release his blockchain management tool
If that will happen there is a danger that Amazon can take control on any blockchain  except
bitcoin
Miners has to agree on any update or  blockchain fork users have not so much to say in fact
POS is easy to say but POS is creating inflation very fast

[DooMAD]

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.

Indeed.  New ideas and innovations can come from anywhere, precisely because it's decentralised.  All the people who can't even tolerate the existence of LN would find their time far better spent coming up with something new that other users might find agreeable.  Although it seems like many of the most persistent whiners probably lack the technical skills to do so.  So they have to put all their efforts into making up new FUD instead.  

But if anyone actually goes ahead and implements ideas in code which are not compatible with what other users are enforcing in their own implementations, they shouldn't be shocked to find themselves moving forward without the other Bitcoin users on board.  Bitcoin users are free to do their own thing and leave you to do whatever crazy stuff you might want to do.  Consensus doesn't mean you get to singlehandedly hold up the progress other people are making just because you don't agree with the direction they are clearly moving in and you somehow think your incompatible ideas are better.  Hence forks.

august 1st was a blah blah blah, whine whine whine, probably uglycry to boot

I'll be sure to hold a small celebration on 1st Aug 2019 to commemorate the anniversary of your ongoing butthurt.  It's about as close to caring as I'm ever likely to get.

core removed fee priority mechanisms to blah blah blah, whine whine whine, probably uglycry to boot

Miners decide miner policy.  Why should Core force their ideas about fees onto miners?  It makes more sense to let the miners decide for themselves.  You'd know this if you researched it, like how you keep telling everyone else to do.  Try taking your own advice.  

Also, one could take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in arguing that it's bad for devs to make all the decisions and then simultaneously arguing that devs should decide fee policy for the miners.  Seriously, which is it?  If you're going to whine about how unfair it supposedly is, could you at least figure out what it is you actually want first?

[franky1]

doomad your boring and just flip flopping

time to move on from reading your core defender speaches.
the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

[DooMAD]

the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

I fully encourage people to decide for themselves.  If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes.  People should read it.  Here it is again.  

Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it?  Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be?  Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.  

[franky1]

the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

I fully encourage people to decide for themselves.  If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes.  People should read it.  Here it is again.  

Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it?  Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be?  Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.  

the reason i say you deny it is because you intentionally flip flop. one minute you admit it and you admire cores actions, the next you deny it even happened. which is where i keep telling you to do your research and then just pick one of your narratives and stick to it.. as it has become boring to repeatedly have to reply to either your flip or your flop. because it just seems your more interested in causing the flip flops for social distraction

..
anyways
devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.

if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul
(EG core should have walked off with tail between legs with their 35% approval, and then come back with an improved compromised version that would have got approval WITHOUT needing to do mandated throw offs)
..
the issue is:
devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)
devs throw other options off the network before an option even activates
devs throw people off the network that dont opt for the version the devs prefer.

also the link you provided PROVES that devs were throwing off segwit2x nodes off the network before segwit2x even got a chance to grow a vote to even have the option of an activation.
and the UASF proved that users got thrown off the network BEFORE segwit1x got activation

...
after an activation. fine. if there is too much orphan drama or ddos spamming bad blocks then fine ban nodes. AFTER ACTIVATION. but throwing people off BEFORE activation purely to get a fake approval vote.. that is not consensus

and that is the thing i have been saying all along.. but wee all know you prefer CORE to remove opposers to fake approval because you love core dominance/dictatorship

P.S
segwit2x nodes would have accepted segwit1x rules so throwing 2x nodes off the network was ZERO percent about security. and 100% about core only wanting 1x activated)
..

thus CORE were in 100% control of what got activated.
yep throwing people off the network BEFORE activation. is not protecting the network because at the point of throwing off the network the feature was not even active to of caused issues. the throwing off was purely to get rid of opposers, to then fake increase approval of a feature only core wanted.

no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete

..
again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found

try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes

[squatter]

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's not off topic because you would have needed access to significant mining power to reliably perform such an attack. Without hash rate, you couldn't guarantee winning bets will be confirmed and losing bets dropped. Any non-miner could have losing bets confirmed all day. A mining pool can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain while confirming others (winning bets). This creates expected value for the colluders.

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.

The point is that miners with significant hash rates have incentives to act dishonestly. The worse mining concentration gets, the less Bitcoin's mining incentives work. Attacking 1-confirmation transactions would significantly increase the costs, but it doesn't destroy the double spend incentive. There just needs to be enough value worth stealing and enough hash rate at the attacker's disposal.

[franky1]

you would need to collude with a mining pool who can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

EG
block 600000 pool a: TX123
block 600001 pool b

imagine malicious pool c came in with a rhashed/re-org'ed the chain to 600002 height that ignored TX123
block 600000 pool c
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

pool A would just make a block later to re-add tx123 ..
block 600003 pool a: TX123

thus pool C wont simply make a chain that ignore tx123 and thats it job done, relax and have coffee.. stop at block 600002
pool C will have to continue to hash away and ensure no other pool gets a chance to re-add tx123 later.
thus its a continual cost for C to keep up this game purely to try to keep tx123 from entering the blockchain later

hense why the 'losing bet' needs to be a significant amount of value for it to be worthy for pool C to continue the pressure to prevent tx123 ongoing.

which is where people say the incentive to mess around with a chain purely to ignore a couple transactions is not big enough, as it takes much longer than just the time of the initial rehash/re-org. the malicious pool has to keep it up for a long time and maybe do many re-orgs if tx123 did appear in competing pools blocks

[squatter]

you would need to collude with a mining pool who can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

The attacker would obviously want to respend those outputs to addresses they control at the same time and try to confirm the double spends.

That's why the amount of hash rate an attacker controls matters so much. Just like selfish mining, the expected value is a matter of probability because Bitcoin's mining algorithm is based on a discrete probability distribution (a Poisson distribution). There's never a guarantee that any attack will work 100% of the time, but the important thing is that the higher an attacker's hash rate, the higher the chances of success. The bigger an entity is, the bigger their incentive to attack.

[franky1]

you would need to collude with a mining pool who can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

The attacker would obviously want to respend those outputs to addresses they control at the same time and try to confirm the double spends..

i see what your saying that pool C would
change:
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
to
block 600000 pool c:  TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1poolcaddr 1btc
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

which would prevent
block 600003 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
because tx123 is spent at 600000 back to 1poolcaddr


but if pool C gave up at 600002 and sat back and had a coffee thinking job done game over...
here is what can happen
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
block 600002 pool a
block 600003 pool a
thus pool A and B re-orged back to the original 600000 and then continued on their merry way as if poolC never occured

meaning that pool C would need to continue way way way passed 600002 just to ensure pools A and B didnt re-org back and reconfirm TX123 with the gambling site

[DooMAD]

devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.

It all sounds a bit dramatic, doesn't it?  "Thrown off the network".  Scary stuff.  Except any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  You can follow multiple chains each with their own consensus rules if you desire.  But you don't get to tell me who I can or can't disconnect from my node.  I can disconnect anyone, at any time, for any reason I wish.  If your fear can't handle my right to do that, go play with fiat.

if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul

And how will you enforce that?  Oh right.  You can't.  You can express your will in the code you run, but, to the best of my knowledge, no one has invented code that stops me disconnecting someone from my node.

devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)

Which client are you running again?  Devs gave you that client, didn't they?  You have your variety.  Why is that not enough for you?  Why do you believe devs are only here so that they can code every ludicrous idea you've ever had?  I doubt that's what they signed up for.  You are so far beyond entitled that it's laughable.

no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete

You can't enforce that.  All you have is "should", "should" and more "should".  Also, consensus is happening every second of every minute of every hour of every day.  It's not a "vote" you can "complete".  Consensus is happening right now.  It is embodied by the rules that are enforced on the BTC network right now by those securing the chain.  The rules that are enforced can involve clients being disconnected.  The rules that are enforced mean that miners get to choose fee policy.  The rules that are enforced do not include any of your whiny "should" talk.

again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found

try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes

We heard you the first dozen times.  We know how you think consensus "should" work.  But the fact that it demonstrably doesn't work like that means you are the one you needs to learn it.  Consensus does mean you can be forked off.  Consensus does mean some users can implement ideas via softfork that you don't approve of.  Consensus does mean devs can code what they like and the code is 100% meaningless if those securing the chain don't agree with it.

None of your idealism and wishful thinking counters the crushing reality of how consensus actually works in the wild.  

[franky1]

^ more flip flops

here he goes again about thrown off the network AFTER activation.. yet he ignores the whole point of PUSHING people off the network BEFORE activation.

consensus is about continually following ACTIVE rules. and then choosing what new features should become active..
the morals of pushing people off the network before a new feature choice is made. is NOT consensus.. its contentious

anyway ill let him flip flop for another year in his echo chamber. as its only wasting his time by him being stuck where he is.

you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules  

gotta love the warped mind he has
in essense... you can rejoin the network if you give up your objection and code your node to flag that you desire some feature activating.(meaning only option is to show agreement)

.

The rules that are enforced mean that miners get to choose fee policy.  
 the code is 100% meaningless if those securing the chain don't agree with it.

so where is the consensus CHOICE to actually oppose a feature activation (imagine it being malicious code) if the only options are accept cores BIP or get thrown off BEFORE the bip even activates.

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

[DooMAD]

^ more flip flops

here he goes again about thrown off the network AFTER activation.. yet he ignores the whole point of PUSHING people off the network BEFORE activation.

Show me where I said "after".  That word doesn't even appear in my post.  Users can disconnect other nodes at any time.  If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  There is nothing incorrect about my statement.  My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation".  If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine.  Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English.  That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying.  It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

You don't have a point.  You just have overly emotive appeals to childish notions of "why can't everyone just play nice together?" and other such "fluffy clouds and rainbows" nonsense.  Sorry, but the real world doesn't play nice.  It's time for you to grow up and accept that life isn't fair and that not everyone thinks you deserve a medal just for taking part.  

Run the code you want to run.  If doing that puts you on another network, that's a "you" problem.  None of us owe you a solution to the part where you want something we clearly don't want.  Your freedom only extends to the point where you encroach on the freedom of others.  If you do that, you are free to leave.  

you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules  

gotta love the warped mind he has
in essense... you can rejoin the network if you give up your objection and code your node to flag that you desire some feature activating.(meaning only option is to show agreement)

Oh wow, you're actually starting to get it.  YES FRANKY1, THAT'S HOW CONSENSUS WORKS.  USERS WHO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER BUILD A CHAIN TOGETHER ON THE SAME NETWORK.  INCOMPATIBLE CODE CAN BE FORKED OFF AT ANY TIME TO FORM A DIFFERENT NETWORK.  Took you long enough, but I'm glad we got there in the end.  Well done.  

It's not an altcoin until a fork occurs, but either side can reject the other at any time.  If you're going to run code that proposes an incompatible change, it should go without saying that you run the risk of other users being so vehemently opposed to your change that they may want to remove you from their network.  Consider it an occupational hazard.  Either those proposing the change can initiate a fork, or those who opposing the change can initiate the fork.  But no doubt you'll somehow fail to comprehend this and label it a flip flop as well, or tell me another made up reason why I need to research something, or just make some other weak deflection about social drama or whatever other catchphrases come to mind.  

To give an example to help you avoid your inevitable confusion, the client you are running proposes a change to the current consensus rules.  It runs on the BTC chain and currently enforces BTC consensus rules.  But it also contains incompatible code that has not been activated.  As such, it's an alternative client, not an altcoin.  One option is that users of your client could change the rules they enforce, enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Another option (the one you don't like) is that users who are not running your client could change the rules they enforce, also enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Alternatively, users of neither client change the rules they enforce and things remain as they currently do.  All three of these options are valid.  You do not have the right to rule any of them out.  

It's not viable to have a network where two diametrically opposed sides want to move in completely different directions.  What does it achieve to keep the two opposed sides on the same network, with neither side achieving anything?  We'd still be in a bitterly entrenched civil war, stuck in total deadlock if things hadn't unfolded how they did.  That's why it's far better for those who want raw throughput to do their thing on another chain while users on this chain focus on the things they want to implement.  Both sides get to move forward.  We then get to see which path works best.  Sometimes decentralisation can take the form of different chains trying different things.  If those other chains demonstrate success, we might adopt similar ideas on this chain later, who knows?  

so where is the consensus CHOICE to actually oppose a feature activation (imagine it being malicious code) if the only options are accept cores BIP or get thrown off BEFORE the bip even activates.

I honestly don't know how you can sit there and claim those are the only options when you are running a client that wasn't made by Core and hasn't been "thrown off".  You have a choice.  You've already made it.  How do you then pretend the choice you've made somehow isn't an option?  It's lunacy.  Other clients exist.  You clearly know that if you are running one.  Try being less dishonest.

Your problem, as I've explained to you time and time again, is that you need OTHER USERS to agree with the choice you've made.  If users agreed with you, they'd be running the same client as you.  Apparently, they don't agree with you.  Keep arguing whatever it is you're going to argue and I'll continue decimating it, but your client has hardly any users.  Nothing you can say will change this fact.  The stuff you want is categorically not what other users want.

Features only activate if users run them.  If code was malicious, users wouldn't run it, so it wouldn't activate.  How can you possibly fail to grasp this?  Stop pretending that the code users have run to disconnect incompatible clients is malicious just because you personally disagree with it.  

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  

[mapanlah]

Decentralization is the key element of crypto currencies. Advancement in technology makes easier to implement decentralized system in many sector. Because it offers flexibility and speed when compared to former. Similarly, we are going to a financial sector which is decentralized and because only this way financial sector can fit into our age.

with a decentralized system, the data that we have or the currency we have will be safe, this will cause there will be no doubling of data that occurs, because all systems are interconnected, if there is one false or multiple data then it will be quickly detected by another server , the decentralized system will record all transaction data throughout the world starting from the first time the blockchain is created until now and in the future, so it is very safe.

[franky1]

Show me where I said "after".  That word doesn't even appear in my post.  Users can disconnect other nodes at any time.  If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  There is nothing incorrect about my statement.  My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation".  If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine.  Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English.  That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying.  It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

mr flip flop

if core want to change the rules.. and its core nodes that disconnect opposers. then its not the opposers that need to "rejoin by following the consensus rules again" because if your trying to twist your rhetoric to be about BEFORE activation.. then no rules have changed yet thus the opposers are and would be running the same rules.. OBVIOUSLY

the only condition where opposers would need to change anything to "follow the rules" (as if they are not following the rules).. is if the rules have changed.. thus AFTER
so its obvious your rant was talking about AFTER because thats the only time an opposer wont be "following the rules"

now...
getting to the point of before activation. WHERE RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED. if core are disconnecting nodes BEFORE cores bips activate then your nonsense about "rejoin by following rules" does not apply because the opposers were following the current rules, but were simply objecting and opposing cores FUTURE proposal
thus core nodes were not doing consensus. they were instead being contentious by throwing out nodes simply due to brand bias to fake approval by only having approval nodes left on the network, to get the bip activated.

you also rant about how you as a unique user have the free choice to disconnct whomever you like from your node. but as your link in an earlier post shows. it was not about unique users manually disconnecting nodes pre-vote deadline/pre activation. it was CODE that biasedly wanted to disconnect certain bitcoin node versions.
so you cant blame the users for manually disconnecting certain nodes. it was the devs who wrote code to automatically disconnect certain nodes, out of pure bias to ensure only segwit1x got activated.
and yes. core devs(blockstream devs more specifically) because of how FIBRE(mattblue) functions as the ringfense layer between mining pools and user nodes had the ultimate say in what data streams from pools to the majority of nodes
..
anyways, your obviously trying too hard to defend cores actions. so just keep it short and sweet. you love centralisation and you think the community should just sheep follow core or get thrown off the network

have a nice day
P.S you seem to be very emotional with all your insults. so i wonder what is behind your motives. why you are so hard nosed dedicated and devoted to wanting core centralisation.
let me guess.. youll flip flop about how consensus should not exist because now you believe that miners and users should not have a choice because that means that devs need others "permission" and your beliefs are that thre should be no permission..

to which ill tell you again.. learn true consensus

also if someone was to check post histories they would see that YOU are the one throwing out the majority of insults. but to address the concern you have about alternative clients being sheep. ill reword it to your buddies prefered buzzwords. seeing as you love their words
"compatible"
"downstream"
"filtered"
"outerlayer"
"not part of the peer-to peer relay layer"
"stripped"
"not quite full nodes"

You just have overly emotive appeals to childish notions of "why can't everyone just play nice together?" and other such "fluffy clouds and rainbows" nonsense.  Sorry, but the real world doesn't play nice.

this statement here proves you have no clue about satoshi's consensus solution to the byzantine generals issue. which made bitcoin so revolutionary

and why core bypassing it purely to gain dictatorship goes against the whole point of decentralisation..

.. but hey, your buddy groups echo chamber is that of wanting a commercial network that does not use a blockchain(LN). so i can see why you dont care to learn about why blockchains and byzantine generals issues and consensus, and why such are not important to you.

you might aswell just go play around on a LN forum and really show your admiration for it, as your wasting ur time on a bitcoin forum by showing your obvious lack of care and understanding of what made bitcoin bitcoin

[DooMAD]

Show me where I said "after".  That word doesn't even appear in my post.  Users can disconnect other nodes at any time.  If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  There is nothing incorrect about my statement.  My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation".  If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine.  Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English.  That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying.  It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

mr flip flop

if core want to change the rules.. and its core nodes that disconnect opposers. then its not the opposers that need to "rejoin by following the consensus rules again" because if your trying to twist your rhetoric to be about BEFORE activation.. then no rules have changed yet thus the opposers are and would be running the same rules.. OBVIOUSLY

It shouldn't be this difficult for it to sink in.  If users choose to enforce a rule that says bit 6 and bit 8 are no longer valid, that is a change in the rules.  It's immaterial if your proposed feature has or hasn't activated.

the only condition where opposers would need to change anything to "follow the rules" (as if they are not following the rules).. is if the rules have changed.. thus AFTER
so its obvious your rant was talking about AFTER because thats the only time an opposer wont be "following the rules"

Nodes began enforcing a consensus rule that meant nodes are disconnected for flagging invalid bits.  If you were flagging bit 6 or bit 8, then you were in breach of the rules nodes freely chose to enforce. 

...
getting to the point of before activation. WHERE RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED.

Rules did change.  Users ran code to enforce the change. 

No one cares what you believe the rules were. 
No one cares if you think they hadn't changed when they had.
No one cares if it was before, during or after proposed features in other clients activating.

Users ran the code and it happened.  But please keep achieving absolutely nothing by refusing to acknowledge events as they were, rather than how you would ideally want them to be and whining that it doesn't work how you think it should.  There is no flip flop, you simply can't accept reality.

[franky1]

^ doomad still has not learned consensus /byzantine generals issue. and still wants to pursue his mindset that core should control the network without community majority triggering the activations of new rules.
his viw is not of bitcoin as it was suppose to be 2009-2013.. but of the view of how bitcoin is now under control 2013-2019
which is the problem
he will continue to argue that bitcoin is now centralsied coded by one group, while then social dramatising (flip flopping) that its then not the case. meaning he is just wasting time with his flip flops..

though its clear what his deep down desire is.

foolish now to even keep talking to doomad as he will just continually perpetuate his belief that central control is what bitcoin was designed for, and will continue to ignore the whole consensus/byzantine generals thing that made bitcoin such a unique/innovative/revolutionary thing.

may doomad one day wake up to the purpose of blockchains.. or stay in his echo chamber of blockchains are useless... who knows. but no point trying to get him to do real research outside his echo chamber. as he seems too deep in it to even want to think independently

oh well
moving on

[LeGaulois]

@frankky
Just throwing an idea

A society cannot function and evolve without leadership. Without rules, it becomes a mess and anarchy and we'd live like 500 years ago with no progress. A consensus between a few people is possible but a consensus with everyone is just impossible and it also implies notions of compromise

Bitcoin needs leadership to progress. Maybe Blockstream is just conservative, and not surprising when you see the soap opera. And I know that you're going to say about DCG, even if you're right about it it's a different point.

The social dramas you talk about are brought on the table by the forks
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

[X7]

While reading articles there were two paragraphs that questioned me

Proof of work was only ever a way to take central control out of the Bitcoin system. But decentralisation is hard – centralisation is always more efficient. So decentralisation failed by 2014, when mining had recentralised to a few large pools. Remember the 51% apocalypse in 2014?

Bitmain has controlled up to 50% of the mining (across multiple pools), makes 80% of the ASICs, and already messed with the BTC hash rate in late 2017. Nobody cared much at the time, because the crypto bubble was in the throes of full “number go up” on the exchanges.

The point of cryptocurrency was decentralisation. If you remove that, the only question left is “why on earth are you bothering with all of this.”

(There’s arguably a hypothetical use case for a centrally-administered blockchain-like currency, such as XRP, which then doesn’t have to bother with proof of work. In that case, we’re still waiting for non-hypothetical production systems that move beyond pilot stage.)

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/01/31/the-buttcoin-standard-the-problem-with-bitcoin/

It turns out that crypto communities make a lot of noise about the value of decentralization, but when you look under the covers, the entire coin comes down to a very small number of participants. For instance, Bitcoin’s blockchain is constructed by 19 mining entities, that’s it. Ethereum’s blockchain is constructed by 11. These are tiny numbers. While it’s true that each and every one of these mining entities consists of multiple sub-players, the fact is that they have come together under a unified entity and are operating together as one big business unit. There is a narrative that mining pools are internally decentralized, that there is invisible decentralization in these systems.


That argument turns out to be complete bunk. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes: they claim that there is something there that no one can see or measure or touch. The bottom line is participants in a mining pool are typically in no position to question what a pool operator is doing. They are in no position to detect when a pool operator launches an attack. So this narrative that these entities are internally decentralized doesn’t hold water. They might not be incorporated, but they are very much one group of people operating for a common cause.

https://www.longhash.com/news/interview-with-emin-gun-sirer-there-are-no-truly-decentralized-coins

Sure centralization is easier that decentralization but does it mean it's impossible? Hell no, I am confident we can still build something decentralized, we can't be perfect within a decade, that's something taking a lot of more years.

I am interested in a debate with people on this subject and the author's opinion

Maintaining decentralization while upholding strong security mechanisms is the tricky part, most people give up on the security for more tx throughput but like yourself I don't think we need to sacrifice one to achieve the other.

Just need to consider more 2nd layer solutions or create alternative systems which can encompass both, the solution will probably be based in math given that it is the universal language of truth.

[franky1]

@frankky
Just throwing an idea

A society cannot function and evolve without leadership. Without rules, it becomes a mess and anarchy and we'd live like 500 years ago with no progress. A consensus between a few people is possible but a consensus with everyone is just impossible and it also implies notions of compromise

Bitcoin needs leadership to progress. Maybe Blockstream is just conservative, and not surprising when you see the soap opera. And I know that you're going to say about DCG, even if you're right about it it's a different point.

but the whole point of bitcoins invention/revolutionary technology is that satoshi solved the problem of allowing rules to be followed and new rules adopted by decentralised individuals without needing a central leader, without mandates and without throwing off the network to get new feature activation.

seems some people forgot what consensus is(or never learned it) and have instead become devoted to those that abused/bypassed consensus because they feel that bitcoin needs leadership.

all in attempt to remove diversity and decentralisation. just so they can get centralisation and distribution(which is different than decentralisation)

the whole revolutionary thing about bitcoin is the no need of leadership. but that got eroded down as of 2013 onwards to th point we are at now.

by saying things need a central leader is ignoring what the consensus mechanism of solving byzantine generals issue was all about..

[LeGaulois]

I do know what is a consensus. But consensus doesn't work. Yes, it does if we are only 10 people, not difficult, but it can't work with everybody included. And it can also work if people are ready for some compromise.
Imagine a consensus in politic, do you really think it's possible? Hell no.