How do you feel about control versus freedom in Bitcoin?

[DooMAD]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  
• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
  
  
• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
  
  
• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them.  Just express what you feel confident about.

[1715561624]

1715561624

[1715561624]

1715561624

[franky1]

"Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks? "

code that is set to automatically ban nodes/reject blocks of an opposing brand on a certain date, by strategic nodes(thus not requiring all users to agree to the plan.
and doing so BEFORE the a future feature the code writers wrote even activates. is immoral

by this i dont mean a independant user decides to manually disconnect its peer, whereby the peer is then free to connect to someone else. i mean where a BRAND produces code that would cause a network affecting disconnect.

as it is the same as apartheid. banning black people from voting in a election only allowing certain demographs to vote.
where by only white supermisists only get a vote in the later actual vote
and same goes for the 'compatible' nodes (analogy mixed race) which dont get a actual vote, they are handed a voting card but treated automatically as abstainers and not counted. thus again faking consensus while given the illusion of being part of the community still

banning nodes AFTER activation. to reduce orphans, fine.
but doing a mandated apartheid banning threat before consensus is reached is immoral

as for "hardfork" at 95%
if 95% are running software that accepts a feature to allow activation. those 95% wont see/feel a fork. the 5% not running will just stall out at a certain block number (stall, not fork)(2013 leveldb) or would if 'compatible' be handed stripped/mutated/edited data to atleast get some resemblance of still bing part of the blockchain, though at a downgraded position than before.

however doing things such as a controversial hard fork/threatening behaviour before activation of feature. purely to get/persuade people into activating a feature, where an actual hard fork larger community participants will be affected prior to activation. is not the spirit of consensus agreement.

as odolvlobo says below. alternative brand clients would be advantageous. and if a feature was truly beneficial to the community alternative clients could easily agree on it as they would see/want the advantages too.
obviously without community agreement obviously the feature needs to be worked on a bit more before being accepted.

by only having one brand that deems themselves authority/reference/core part of the network to just activate stuff under whatever policy they please leaves the network at risk to low quality code activations and trojans/tactics that go against the very purpose of bitcoins invention. thus having an array of diversity is beneficial. and single branding is actually more of a risk

[odolvlobo]

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?

Freedom is Bitcoin's most important quality. It is not possible for everyone to agree or be happy. Ensuring agreement and happiness is counter to the concept of freedom.

• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?

There is no way to enforce the kind of consensus you are describing other than through mining power and forking. Any other proposed system of governance is wishful thinking or anti-freedom.

The purpose of a soft fork has nothing to do with governance or consensus. Its purpose is to make a fork more convenient and less disruptive.

• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?

A person running a node is free to do whatever they want to do, including connecting to a node or banning it. Beyond fraud or harming other people, morality has nothing to do with it. If the node runs software that you object to, you are free to modify that software (or get somebody else to modify it for you) so that it will work the way you want it to.

• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?

I don't keep a close watch, but I try to be aware of things like the time luke-jr modified the version of Bitcoin installed with Gentoo to blacklist certain addresses.

• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

I don't believe that any person or group has complete control, but I feel that Bitcoin Core does exert the greatest amount of influence. Of course, Bitcoin Core itself is not a cohesive group of people, but they are controlled to some extent by an oligarchy.

I believe that having several alternate clients would be ideal, despite the engineering and coordination problems that might create.
[/list]

[Artemis3]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them.  Just express what you feel confident about.

• Freedom of course.
• Hmm well the way its been handled so far has worked, we have Segwit and LN now.
• You cannot do much about that, people can also ban specific IPs because they don't like their behavior.
• "In Core We Trust", until the market says otherwise.
• Most miners agree with core anyway, and those who tried their own way have forked and gone without much success, proving the point.

[Carollzinha]

I think Bitcoin should stay anonymous as it is right now which makes it worth using (all cryptocurrencies basically).
And if that must follow some rules to make it worth continuing using it for than i'm ok with that as long it stays secure.

[pooya87]

Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees? 

they don't have to be on two different sides. the freedom is the most important thing but also since we are in a decentralized system everyone should agree about a change or that change must not happen if they can't reach an agreement.

Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?

i don't like playing with terms like "soft/hard fork" i believe they mislead the arguments. i say any change in consensus rules must only happen with the majority's support and if that can not be reached then that change must not happen. otherwise we do not have a healthy decentralized system.
so far all the bitcoin "changes" have happened with this kind of majority support (over 95%) and that is why bitcoin is still strong and has not split into more than 1 chain.
and that is why i strongly hate bitcoin-cash which never had any support, clearly visible based on their initial hashrate and lack of usage in the past year.
this is also why i hate things such as BIP148 and all those who were misleading people at that time like LukeJr.

Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?

there are two different discussions here:
1. disconnecting from a client that is following different consensus rules
2. disconnecting from a client that is following the same consensus rules but is just different

the first one is a must and it should happen automatically too, like disconnecting from BCH nodes in August when the fork first happened.
but the second one is a dishonest and dirty move. like disconnecting from btc1 nodes that were enforcing the same consensus rules but were being banned months before the deadline of the 2 MB hard fork came.

If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?

it is impossible for everyone to go through the code or even compile it themselves. but i believe that people should at least read the change log to be aware of what is being changed. new versions are not just new features, there are bug fixes too that may be influencing you.

Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

no i don't believe that but they certainly have a big influence as they should since they have the experience coming from years of working on bitcoin and that doesn't have to be a bad thing. although i have seen a bad mentality grow in the past couple of years, specially in 2017. for example by that time if you asked those who were passionately against BClassic, BCH, SegWit2x,... and were supporting SegWit or even UASF why they are against the first and for the second they would have answered because core is not/ supporting it. and that is a dangerous thing.

i still believe that we need multiple implementations of bitcoin that are preferably written in a different language by different teams so that they don't have the dependency which would also prevent problems like this one, although you can read the discussions against something like that in this topic too but i still believe the benefits are more..

[CHENIEN]

The freedom of bitcoin is actually having a rules of control system.. And those every users are only follow on what the price status or price level of bitcoin.. We the people are having limitation of freedom that defends on the system which provided by the bitcoin management.

[davis196]

Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  

For me,trying to make everyone happy and always pushing forward to a 100% consensus is the worst possible case scenario/business model.
People are free to choose wether or not to use or mine bitcoin.If they are unhappy with bitcoin core,they could split the blockchain with a fork,or they could just leave bitcoin and choose one of the altcoins.If you make a sertain choice,you have to take some sort of responsibility and follow sertain rules.Freedom=responsibility.

[alisafidel58]

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  

Freedom is the most important quality of Bitcoin and Devs should prioritize this and have a single consensus. You can't make everyone happy, but with freedom, everyone will be.

[avikz]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  

Majority always wins and majority must always win! This is how the democracy works and this is how it should be! To stay within a civilized society, it is more important that majority agrees to one point. It is impossible to reach 100% consensus everytime so I will keep it as "majority agrees"! Freedom follows when we follow the path of democracy!

• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?

I will again prefer to stay with the "majority" and don't agree with the veto power either. Veto is always harmful where a certain group can turn the tide of the game if anything isn't going according to their wish. Just take a recent example of China. While all permanent members of the Security Council of UN agreed to declare "Masud Azhar" as a global Terrorist, China exercised Veto against that decision to support their friend Pakistan and to maintain the border tension between India and Pakistan. So Veto power is harmful to a great extent.

Rather softfork is little more acceptable! If a certain percentage of users want to make their own way, they can softfork their way out and seclude themselves from the main network. However, it is also not great in long run, because then the network will be divided in thousands of small groups with different opinions and visions which will effectively weaken the network for their own good.

In my opinion, hardfork at 95% agreement without the power of exercising veto is the strongest network structure we can observe! Because this is how the majority will win for the greater good!

• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?

No! It indicates a civil war within the network and shows a weak side of decentralization. It enforces the rule of muscle power!

My points are simple! Decentralization has its own pros and cons as nothing can be flawless in the world. So a rule of "majority wins" should be enforced within the algorithm because that's how today's democracy works and it is one of the near perfect formulas to run things smoothly! I am not getting into any technical discussion because I don't know how to code and I am unable to decipher the meaning of any code. But to have a peaceful solution of almost everything needs a rule of "majority wins". This is how the network ensures that the majority is happy and that's what matters the most![/list]

[jseverson]

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  

I think freedom should be above all else. The openness of Bitcoin encourages it, and there's no way to make everybody happy anyway.

If that much consensus is necessary, I don't think the community can go anywhere. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can hard fork all they want; the community can support whichever aligns with their ideals the best. There are going to be a lot of fractures, but it's better than staying in an unhappy marriage right? You also get to measure real consensus this way, from actual end users. Forcing people to agree to whatever compromise just to keep the community together feels a little too much like government to me.

People who choose not to upgrade in cases of soft forks can't really complain because it's their choice at the end of the day. They can't force individuals with different ideals who want different things to grant them anything more than backwards compatibility.

[figmentofmyass]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?

bitcoin users already agree to bitcoin's consensus rules.

backward compatible soft forks are compatible with the consensus, which all users already agree with. so based on node behavior alone, any arguments claiming that eg people didn't agree with segwit are bullshit on their face. if you didn't agree with segwit, go ahead and fork yourself off the bitcoin network cuz you apparently didn't agree with bitcoin's consensus rules to begin with.

hard forks are not compatible with the consensus. there is no possible way to measure "consensus" for a hard fork because by definition, it means leaving the current network/consensus. the idea that you could get affirmative agreement from every single one of the millions of bitcoin users to leave the bitcoin network and start running a hard fork is ridiculous. any hard fork proponent claiming they represent all bitcoin users is a straight up liar. and using hash rate as a measure of "support" from bitcoin users is insulting to everyone's intelligence. miners represent a tiny, tiny portion of bitcoin users.

for me, the room for hard forks is very, very small. if ECDSA or SHA-256 get broken, based on incentives i think we could justify a hard fork. but for controversial things? good luck![/list]

[kryptqnick]

• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  

Since I'm not sure about the other questions, I'll respond only to this one. I think that it should matter WHO disagrees, not HOW MANY of them do. If these are some random weirdos that some some reason don't want changes, then to hell with them, a soft fork is okay. If among these 5% there are people who've been really contributing to the development and adoption of Bitcoin significantly as well as if these people hold really big amounts of Bitcoin, I think a hard fork is more appropriate. I choose so not only because it seems fair, but because we clearly made a mistake in the past. Segwit was a soft fork which led immediately to Bitcoin cash hard fork and rather suddenly at the end of 2018 to Craid Wright's 'restoration' of the original bitcoin. I am not sure how many new Craig Wrights bitcoin network can handle. So maybe from now on significant changes that have strong opposers should be performed via hard fork only.

[Pursuer]

I think that it should matter WHO disagrees, not HOW MANY of them do. If these are some random weirdos that some some reason don't want changes, then to hell with them,

ok, but what method do you propose to us in order to determine who is a "weirdo" and who is not so that we can ignore those? what if those "weirdos" also found you a "weirdo" and considered what you support to not be the ay to go?

you see, that is the problem when you bring "who" in instead of "what and how many".

[BitBustah]

Whether we want to admit it or not there are groups that have major control over bitcoin.  The majority of hashrate is coming from China, there are only a few asic manufacturers, and most bitcoins are in just a few wallets.

[dothebeats]

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  

Freedom is a vital component of bitcoin, given that the very nature of the said network is decentralized. Everyone gets the job done and does what everyone needs to do without the need to look at what everyone else is doing while reaching a consensus at some point if the community needs to decide for an important matter. In a real-world society setup, the ruling party doesn't always ensure that everyone is happy and everyone agrees.

• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?
  
  

Knowing that the whole setup is completely decentralized and not everyone is being affected by a single party, I believe it's okay to hardfork at a 95% agreement, 6% to veto the process if and only if the whole network is fully decentralized. If it isn't, I wouldn't be okay with that as anyone with a large number of miners can simply do as they please and halt progress that the majority of the community wants to have. As for softforks, so long as they are still following the general protocol, it's fine if they don't want to upgrade as again, freedom is a vital part of bitcoin.

Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?

Going back to real-world scenarios, you don't expect a 100% vote onto something as other people will still have different opinions and POVs regarding a very important matter. Bitcoin is a decentralized network, and not one single party can ever urge the whole network to vote for their agenda no matter how 'perfect' and how well-planned that agenda is. The majority rule in a decentralized network, I believe, is the perfect approach for consensus, and the 95% agreement 6% veto setup is already fair enough for the whole community.

• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
  
  

It isn't immoral, IMO as it's just preserving the integrity of the data being stored, transferred, and relayed within the network. That's why consensus should be reached first before moving forward towards a new different client (if that's the case). Freedom is a vital component of the bitcoin network but then again, it is not the only component that makes the network strong.

• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
  
  

I cannot speak for this as I don't and won't have a plan to setup a full node unless I have my own miners and a large array of spare hard drives and computers in my arsenal.

• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

At times, yes, I believe that Core dev team is somewhat in control of what happens in the bitcoin network. People have the options to go around and explore what version of bitcoin do they think will be beneficial to them, but since bitcoin is where the money's at and where most people dwell, the question of who controls what in the code somewhat became political, up to an extent that it's not about bitcoin anymore but rather about who should be in control of making code changes. If bitcoin never reached this big, I wonder if we will still be having some questions on who replaces what on the code or whether we'll have a talk on who the devs are, at all.

[DooMAD]

In my opinion, hardfork at 95% agreement without the power of exercising veto is the strongest network structure we can observe! Because this is how the majority will win for the greater good!

To clarify, the "6% veto" is something that naturally results from requiring 95% consensus to approve a change.  You can't have a high activation threshold without effectively granting more power to those who might oppose change.  Say if 94% of the network wanted to active a feature, but 6% wanted to block it, then the feature would not activate.  Those who resist changes have an easier job.

Would that not stagnate technological progress and create constant deadlocks where improvements to the protocol could not be made?  That's why I'm interested in hearing different views on that particular point.  

[leea-1334]

I will say here that I cannot really answer many of the questions. I am only a user of Bitcoin for over a year, maybe you can say two years if you count everything in. And probably I will not know more than I do now. I am interested purely as a user of a new technology that lets me control the money I spend without trusting anyone.

So that is the freedom I like. I guess I wish I had even more control. Like, I want to send it faster sometimes, and not wait 30 minutes for a new block and maybe even more if my fee was not enough. Things like that. I hope my small answer helps.

[Beerwizzard]

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  

In most cases, Bitcoin is free as much as you are free in your country.
It is like cash, you are also free to have it. Also no one will probably regulate BTC but if someone will implement any regulations then they will be probably forced against crypto accepting businesses. Bitcoin can hardly be considered free is you won't be able  to buy something for it.

[palle11]

I want to say about the control. The control is one important quality of bitcoin. It gives you the liberty to financially carry your obligation without any third party or checking from anywhere. You can only trace an address but can't locate the owner physically with FBI  

[OlympianBitcoin]

In the end, there is no REAL freedom in the human society which requires regulation and consensus. Something will be always done at someone's expense and in the way they don't like. Same with Bitcoin. Same with its integration into the mainstream and whatever govermnets choose to do with it.

That being said, Bitcoin's limited supply and other specifications make it "free" in a democratic sense and protect it from centralized abuse

[DooMAD]

this is also why i hate things such as BIP148

My initial draft of this thread did have a question about flag-day activations, but since there were already so many questions posed, I didn't want to have too much stuff in there.  But since you raised the point about 148/UASF, I suppose we'll add it into the mix.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of UASF either.  But with the way it was coded, with an arbitrary date to activate, it's not something that you can really preempt.  It's just a case of waiting to see who does or doesn't run it.  Do people feel this is a somewhat reckless approach to consensus?  Or is it again something that boils down to freedom?  There's currently no way to prevent someone from coding something with an activation date.  And, personally, I don't think that I could ever be convinced that it was right to prevent someone from doing it, even if it were possible.  Even if I don't agree with the code, it's not my place to tell someone they can't/shouldn't make it.  

I'm glad that's not the route we took, but if something similar happened again, I'd still defend their right to do it, even if I was simultaneously saying it was a terrible idea.

[franky1]

in a different topic doomad show admiration for mandatory dated bans and was very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it. 
....
 I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.

mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

..
as for writing code..
anyone can write code. they can write it on a napkin, a thigh of a blonde prostitute, write it in github. nothing stops anyon writing code.

but if those writing code have access to certain things where their code can cause network wide changes without the networks consent. then thats a different matter.

take the august 2017 events. it did not require 95% of the community to agree using a true open consensus.. it just required mattblue to add it to his fibre, thus the blocks that got relayed beyond fibre would all be missing old flags, thus faking agreement by simply not letting the mainnet community of nodes get opposing blocks
and as for node bans. adding certain stuff to the DNS seeds thus when nodes make connections they wont get a list of opposing nodes, thus have nothing to need to manually/individually disconnect

and if you want to deny that august first event didnt happen. check the IMMUTABLE blockchain
and if you want to deny that core struck first on august first. check the IMMUTABLE blockchain

core changed block flag/format at a certain block. and it wasnt for like 5 hours did the opposition react by getting their first block to start their own chain after cores actions

again core wrote the code. not some bitcoin AI. so please dont try now suggesting that some AI was involved or random users wrote the code or that the code just sprung out of nowhere. core wrote it. thy knew how to implement it and they used it to get segwit1x activated
and again it was not a case of ~9500 nodes agreeing.

[DooMAD]

in a different topic doomad show admiration for mandatory dated bans and was very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it. 
....
 I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.

mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

I asked you to keep it civil, but clearly that's beyond your capability.  As with every other time you've spouted your moronic flip flop catchphrase, there is no flip flop.  Either you are deliberately conflating unrelated concepts, or you simply don't understand written English very well.  My words were as follows:

And, personally, I don't think that I could ever be convinced that it was right to prevent someone from doing it, even if it were possible.  Even if I don't agree with the code, it's not my place to tell someone they can't/shouldn't make it. 

I'm glad that's not the route we took, but if something similar happened again, I'd still defend their right to do it, even if I was simultaneously saying it was a terrible idea.

In what conceivable way does that have anything to do with my agreement of disconnecting incompatible nodes?  Just because someone is free to code it and I will defend their right to code it, that doesn't mean any user on this network is under any obligation whatsoever to accept a connection to one of those nodes if they don't want to.  Learn freedom.  It's completely irrelevant when 2x was due to activate because it's not a vote.  It was never a vote.  You do not understand Bitcoin if you think it was a vote.  You can code an activation date if you like but no one has to pay the slightest bit of attention to it if they don't want to.  Who the hell do you think you are telling us we have to wait until a certain date before we can draw our own conclusions?  You can't force anyone to wait for it to activate before deciding.  They can decide whenever they like.  It's not your decision.  The only things you have control over are your private keys, the software you choose to run, any software you choose to create and the blockchain(s) you choose to transact on.  That's it.  Nothing else.  So stay out of other peoples' business, you authoritarian sack of shit.  Why is freedom such an ongoing issue for you?  How is it beyond your decidedly limited comprehension that users on this network don't have to play nice if they don't want to.  Life isn't fair.  I would have thought your parents might have taught you that, but at this stage I'll have to assume they abandoned you as a child due to how much of a colossal disappointment they somehow knew you'd turn out to be.

[franky1]

me uncivil??
if 'flip flop' is uncivil, then look at your own insults.

my authoritarian??
sorry but you mean you and cores authoritarian
show some code i wrote that changed the network
show a brand/client software i wrote
show a brand which i own that has the same command/control of the network to do inflight upgrades and consensus bypasses that core done...
(hint you wont find any)

you really have no clue

1. CORE done some immoral and consensus bypassing practices. not me
2. you first said you 'didnt agree' but then said you agreed (hence flip flop)
3. again writing code anyone can do it. writing it on github, writing it on the thigh of a blonde woman, write it on a napkin
BUT thats where you get pedantic with your chosen wording. because:
a. when what they wrote is not a feature upgrade that uses consensus. but a network split to remove opposition to a future vote of an upgrade... thus faking that future vote... thts a whole different story

b. they didnt just write it. they implemented it in such a way that it didnt need the network to agree to it
c. you say it didnt need a vote. then say 'users are free to use it and it wont do anything unless user agreement'... yet reality is the DEVS didnt need users for the network split (pre feature vote). they just needed fibre and dns seeds(which they controlled.. not the community)
d. if you think a dev should have enough control to change a network without the community consent then you have already denounced decentralisation. already denounced the whole point of blockchains, byzantine generals solution, denounced
user indepeendance

so
if you think its ok for a dev to implement code through their commercial team of fibre, dns seeds and NYA.. imagine the event happened the same method. but the future vote after the apartheid (controversial fork of opposition) was a feature that would ruin bitcoin. such as code that makes UTXO time out after 2 days and give funds to mining pools. or changed the block reward. or to make block 'gigabytes by midnight'

would you be so willing to let devs just kick opposition off the network to activate such features after by faking consnsus agreement vote of those features.

also
if your ok saying the community dont get a say/vote/choice. and shouldnt.. and how you will defend devs control.
then your saying you will defend thee shepherd because the network is just sheep

[DooMAD]

thus faking that future vote

What part of IT'S NOT A VOTE doesn't make sense to you?  You can't "fake" a vote if there is no vote.  The more you talk about voting, the more you make it abundantly clear that you do not understand Bitcoin.  

you say it didnt need a vote.

No.  There is no vote.  Voting is for people who like to pretend democracy isn't corrupt and practically worthless.

would you be so willing to let devs just kick opposition off the network to activate such features

Based on every conversation we've ever had, surely you must be able to see why that's a stupid question to ask me, right?  It's not up to me what devs do.  Why are you asking what I'm "willing to let devs do" when it's not up to me what they do?  They can do anything they like.  And more importantly, you know (because I've said it often enough) that it's not the devs who make the decisions when it comes to consensus.  Those securing the chain do that.  Devs do not decide consensus.  Devs make decisions about what goes into their code.  Those securing the chain decide whether to run it or not.  How can I make this any clearer for you?  If I don't agree with what a dev team are doing, I won't run their code.  If I ever find myself in a position where I don't agree with what the majority of users on this network are doing or what code they are running, I'll consider finding another network where I do agree with what the users are doing.  But the fact that I'm here on this chain means I do agree.  I don't have any problems with what the devs are doing.  I don't have any problems with the code the majority are running.  I am happy with Bitcoin as it is today.  

I love freedom, which means I ardently believe people can do what they want.  I honestly don't see how you can have such a problem with what is clearly a perfectly reasonable stance.  Everyone does what they want.  That's Bitcoin.  

But every time you say something that indicates you would willingly restrict someone's freedom, I will tell you why I believe you're wrong.  

Every time you try to cram some bullshit voting nonsense down our throats.  
Every time you say developers shouldn't be allowed to code something.
Every time you insist users shouldn't be allowed to disconnect other clients.
Every time you claim everyone has to agree before anything can change.
Every time you say we have to wait for a feature to activate before deciding.
Every time you forget how huge your ego is and mistakenly believe anyone needs your permission or consent when they clearly fucking don't.

All of that is covered by freedom.  It's up to each individual how they choose to act.  Not you.  Are you anywhere close to comprehending this yet?

[PlusOne88]

Freedom to do anything with bitcoin would be anyone's goal as people wouldn't want to live without it. But sometimes freedom would affect the advantage that you can have. See how governments played an important rule in the success of a state. A lawless state will end up dying at the hands of those who are grouped together, organized by laws and created it for the common good. In the bitcoin system when it becomes open to anybody, without rules without anything governing it, It will end up in a great trouble. How about its effect to the economy? We know it is tied to money our fiat currency and wastage of bitcoin could be just the same as wasting ones money. How about possible manipulation? What can we do with it? How about concerns regarding hacking of bitcoin accounts? How can anyone just anybody help the victim? These are a few things for me that needs to be addressed before we shall fully make bitcoin free to all or anybody without any control or regulation. It could have been better to let things run with freedom but sometimes freedom will cost you opportunities. I think such regulation will be necessary.

[franky1]

"there is no vote"
well thats true now core have ways to bypass consensus

but bitcoin 2009-2017 was not always that way
2009-2015 consensus did function. there wer mutple brands on one network. none of them had mandated apartheid consensus bypassing code. it was a simpl reach a certain vote threshold and the proposed featur activates. if a feature didnt get the vote it wont activate

ya from 2015-2017 core slowly eroded away the consensus mechanism making nodes more like sheep with their "compatibility" consensus bypass stuff by not requiring nodes to upgrade to show opt-in/consent/vote to activate
and by knocking nodes opposing a core proposal off the network BEFORE a vote
so now that everything is core dev controlled (code, nodes, fibre, dns seeds) even a vote is not needed


so doomad by saying consensus(voting) doesnt exist, there is no thresholds needed anymore. no need for byzantine generals theory solution. thus admitting core are in control and decentralisation is dead.
(distribution vs decentralisation are 2 diffrent things)

and if doomad dares to flip flop to then say nothing gets activated unless majority vote to activate it.. then he is just flip flopping and being pedantic

doomad.. your flip flops are stupid
you say there is no vote and then say majority.(facepalm)

if there is no vote then there is no majority/threshold
dont then say there is consensus because you will ofcourse then say the network is permissionless and devs dont need consent

for months you keep flip flopping. atleast stick to one narrative
again stop flip flopping. stick to one narrative. admit core control the network. (no vote/no permission=nodes are just sheep)

[Pattart]

In the end, there is no REAL freedom in the human society which requires regulation and consensus. Something will be always done at someone's expense and in the way they don't like. Same with Bitcoin. Same with its integration into the mainstream and whatever govermnets choose to do with it.

That being said, Bitcoin's limited supply and other specifications make it "free" in a democratic sense and protect it from centralized abuse

Of course there is no freedom for everything, but in some aspects bitcoin gives freedom to anyone. You will definitely find a lot of control on third parties in Bitcoin, such as online wallets, exchanges and so on. but in some aspects of true decentralization still exists.

[pooya87]

this is also why i hate things such as BIP148

My initial draft of this thread did have a question about flag-day activations, but since there were already so many questions posed, I didn't want to have too much stuff in there.  But since you raised the point about 148/UASF, I suppose we'll add it into the mix.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of UASF either.  But with the way it was coded, with an arbitrary date to activate, it's not something that you can really preempt.  It's just a case of waiting to see who does or doesn't run it.  Do people feel this is a somewhat reckless approach to consensus?  Or is it again something that boils down to freedom?  There's currently no way to prevent someone from coding something with an activation date.  And, personally, I don't think that I could ever be convinced that it was right to prevent someone from doing it, even if it were possible.  Even if I don't agree with the code, it's not my place to tell someone they can't/shouldn't make it. 

I'm glad that's not the route we took, but if something similar happened again, I'd still defend their right to do it, even if I was simultaneously saying it was a terrible idea.

as far as "freedom" goes, anybody should be allowed to make any kind of change and make any proposal they want and have the freedom to put it out there and ask others to follow it if they want. but also it is our duty to fight proposals that have a very high possibility of splitting bitcoin into two. in my opinion the damage that such type of split can cause is far more dire than anything else.
BIP148 would have basically created a SegWit chain with minority support (~10% miners which could have gone to 30% if the rest of the SegWit supporting miners switched and about 10% of the nodes) and the rest would have remained in legacy chain rejecting each other!

[Kakmakr]

Wow OP, that was a real mouth full and a can of worms kinda post. 

I think the freedom from the majority consensus is already a huge step in the right direction, because we will be seeing the competition crushing that freedom with centralized control in the upcoming BankCoins and even some of the GovCoins. People will only appreciate the consensus based "freedom" of Bitcoin, when they see what Banks and governments will be doing with their coins in the future. <The public will have no influence in the decision making for those coins.>

If some developer or node does not agree with changes, then they are welcome to create their own Alt coin and if they get enough support, then they can force a hard fork, so there is nothing wrong with that idea in my opinion. 

[Beerwizzard]

Wow OP, that was a real mouth full and a can of worms kinda post. 

I think the freedom from the majority consensus is already a huge step in the right direction, because we will be seeing the competition crushing that freedom with centralized control in the upcoming BankCoins and even some of the GovCoins. People will only appreciate the consensus based "freedom" of Bitcoin, when they see what Banks and governments will be doing with their coins in the future. <The public will have no influence in the decision making for those coins.>

If some developer or node does not agree with changes, then they are welcome to create their own Alt coin and if they get enough support, then they can force a hard fork, so there is nothing wrong with that idea in my opinion. 

BankCoins and GovCoins are more likely to be stablecoins so they will be pretty diffrernt comparing them to other currencires. There will be some purpose to buy them that will be related to issuer's service and won't be giving you a profit for HODLing them.
Also public should have an influence. I'm sure that banks won't sustain their coins if they won't be getting any profit.

[DooMAD]

"there is no vote"
well thats true now core have ways to bypass consensus

You are entitled to your wrong opinion.  But it should be pretty obvious by this point that for the entire time you've spent on this board, every single time you've ever used the word "consensus", you are referring to a version of it that only exists in your imagination.  Here in the real world, functioning adults find themselves in situations where pragmatism is favourable to childish naivety.  Maybe give that a try for once?

so doomad by saying consensus(voting) doesnt exist, there is no thresholds needed anymore.

You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork.  Recorded events have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that such a preconception is utterly wrong.  The threshold for any consensus changes is clearly dynamic.  It is entirely dependant on what code users are running at the time.  

You are welcome to express your written preference for 95% hardforks.  You are welcome to run code that doesn't activate a feature until there is 95% support.  But the simple fact of the matter is that if other people on the network are running code that says the feature can activate at 80% hardfork, or that a change can be implemented via softfork, your preference is not sufficient to block the majority.

and if doomad dares to flip flop to then say nothing gets activated unless majority vote to activate it.. then he is just flip flopping and being pedantic

doomad.. your flip flops are stupid
you say there is no vote and then say majority.(facepalm)

94% is a majority.
87% is a majority.
75% is a majority.

You can't single-handedly enforce 95% as the only acceptable definition of the word "majority".  You can't single-handedly enforce making people wait around until a certain date or the threshold you personally want to see.  If it was a vote (it's not), you would be able to enforce those things.  Voting is not akin to freedom.  Voting is how those in control present the illusion of freedom.  Voting restricts freedom, so I can see why you'd naturally be a fan.  You would love a Bitcoin where you could suppress and stagnate any advancements and hold the network to ransom until you got your larger blocks.  Screw your precious voting.  Screw your "95% or stagnate" ultimatums.  Screw your hate speech against the developers who found a perfectly valid way to keep Bitcoin intact while implementing SegWit.  No one cares if you don't think it's fair.

if there is no vote then there is no majority/threshold
dont then say there is consensus because you will ofcourse then say the network is permissionless and devs dont need consent

for months you keep flip flopping. atleast stick to one narrative
again stop flip flopping. stick to one narrative. admit core control the network. (no vote/no permission=nodes are just sheep)

Wrong.  But thanks for allowing me to point out why you're wrong.  Please keep telling us Core are in control becuase you are bitter about the fact that you couldn't hold the network hostage until Core coded a client supporting a larger base blocksize, like you clearly thought would happen because you don't understand freedom or consensus.

as far as "freedom" goes, anybody should be allowed to make any kind of change and make any proposal they want and have the freedom to put it out there and ask others to follow it if they want. but also it is our duty to fight proposals that have a very high possibility of splitting bitcoin into two. in my opinion the damage that such type of split can cause is far more dire than anything else.

And that's it in a nutshell.  We can definitely have a discussion where everyone can argue the pros and cons of any given proposal, but it's categorically not a vote where everyone has to agree.  Each user will naturally do what they believe is best for the good of the network as a whole.  Those who can reach an agreement will move forward together. 

[franky1]

again doomad you are ignorant of facts

firstly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not to do with the actual activating segwit.
it was about disconnecting opposition

secondly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not requiring the community nodes to do a dang thing
it did not need 9500 nodes to manually disconnect opposition..
it did not need majority do something to cause the controversial network affecting (aparthied analogy) bilateral split

can you stop pretending it was a 'individual freedom' where you had the choice of going into your node and disconnecting who you wanted. it would have still happened even if general community did nothing.

the purpose was to FAKE a majority by diluting the network to then cause the network to appear like segwit was in full agreement.

this kind of immoral control stuff is exactly what the problems with digital money pre millenium. and how it took satoshi nakamoto to  come up with a byzantine solution.. but now there is no byzantine generals(plurals) and things are now just a single general. the whole point of blockchains and decntralisation is lost. because consensus has now ben bypassed

the real MORAL flow of a consensus should be as follows
1. feature proposed.
2. users adopt or not
3. if adoption reaches a threshold it activates. if it doesnt reach a threshold it doesnt activate
4. the threshold should be high enough or have a waiting period for any laggers to update after activation threshold before the network change so that it doesnt cause much orphan drama
5. if orphan drama is noticable after network change then disconnect opposing nodes that are causing orphans

NOT
1. feature proposed
2. disconnect opposing nodes even before activation, even when they are not causing any orphan drama. but done so just to get feature activated at any cost
3. less nodes on network but those remaining are showing as agreeing.. certain blocks are rejected by fibre even before reaching main relay stream thus again making it appear as full agreement

try to learn why the cypherpunks got excited about satoshis byzantine generals solution.
try to understand why bitcoin WAS revolutionary and WAS decentralised.
i know you advocate that you prefer core control and love to defend the core devs

but put the core dev defense hat away and instead think for a few minutes. what if the core devs and their partners done the same 2017 tactics, not for segwit, but for a feature that would have killed bitcoin. knowing general nodes were acting just as sheep. where cores tactics only needed their fibre and their dns seeds and not the community to activate

bitcoin 2015-19 is not the same ethos as bitcoin 2009-2015

oh and as for your silly rant about
"You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork."
1. no where have i said its always was, is , should be 95%.
the reason i mention 95% is because that was the threshold of bip9. which CORE USED and which CORE had to IMMORALLY disconnect nodes to fake achieving.
2. i never set the threshold as 95% i didnt choose/code/invent, i had nothing to do with 95% so go do some research next time.
3. again show me any code that makes you think im some authoritarian that produced a high threshold... hint i didnt
4. so stop trying to make it out that i am the nasty controller and authoritarian. when the only people that coded immoral consensus bypassing crap were the core devs
5. also a true consensus if majority threshold was reached MORALLY, it would not even be a "hardfork".. which just shows you really need to do some research

[xWolfx]

In the end, there is no REAL freedom in the human society which requires regulation and consensus. Something will be always done at someone's expense and in the way they don't like. Same with Bitcoin. Same with its integration into the mainstream and whatever govermnets choose to do with it.

That being said, Bitcoin's limited supply and other specifications make it "free" in a democratic sense and protect it from centralized abuse

We also need to understand that what people see as real freedom is not viable to do in the current society, otherwise it will be the game of some people taking advantage of the others and without something effective to stop them it would be a lot worse. Look at Venezuela.

We also need to understand that everybody won't fully agree with any idea. People have different opinions and even if they are cool and/or smart people they have different backgrounds and stories.

I believe that we need to find balance between control and freedom in a way that best benefit the world in the future.

[DooMAD]

• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?

No! It indicates a civil war within the network and shows a weak side of decentralization. It enforces the rule of muscle power!

Just so I've got it clear, which part were you saying "No" to?  The "Is it wrong or immoral" part?  Or the "Should users be allowed to" part?  The discussion that led to the disconnecting code being merged can be found here if anyone wants to read it for themselves.

[xWolfx]

as far as "freedom" goes, anybody should be allowed to make any kind of change and make any proposal they want and have the freedom to put it out there and ask others to follow it if they want. but also it is our duty to fight proposals that have a very high possibility of splitting bitcoin into two. in my opinion the damage that such type of split can cause is far more dire than anything else.
BIP148 would have basically created a SegWit chain with minority support (~10% miners which could have gone to 30% if the rest of the SegWit supporting miners switched and about 10% of the nodes) and the rest would have remained in legacy chain rejecting each other!

I agree with you 100%. And not only that, but also something that could have high possibilities of negatively affecting Bitcoin's future growth rate.

That's where our aim should be, based on the core principles of Bitcoin and the reason it was created. We shouldn't betray that. Changing the world is the main goal, not quick temporary measurements.

[Karamabit_209]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  

I take freedom. You cannot please everyone, even you do all the best you can. At least with freedom, they can do what they wanted to do that will make them happy. [/list]

[Kamoteng Kahoy]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  

I take freedom. You cannot please everyone, even you do all the best you can. At least with freedom, they can do what they wanted to do that will make them happy. [/list]

I agree. At least you make them all happy.

[Mastercon]

Freedom is not everything you can't gain any profit from it. But yeh i prefer control be patient and let the thing happen. You should always invest which you're willing to afford. Waiting is the key of success in crypto currency where freedom is for failure. We all know bitcoin is decentralized no one know what will happen tomorrow better to wait and hold coins

[jpnl0005]

basically, the idea behind the cryptocurrency which was begotten by blockchain is not for control to exist but to give freedom of individuals to control their resources. Hence, the idea of control was not intended for the technology but for certain reason a certain group of people decided to regulate certain features and that gave birth to control but i feel it is not relevant

[CBANX Ltd.]

Freedom is the ornament of Bitcoin and just because of which it stands out among the tradition digital assets.

[Kakmakr]

Wow OP, that was a real mouth full and a can of worms kinda post. 

I think the freedom from the majority consensus is already a huge step in the right direction, because we will be seeing the competition crushing that freedom with centralized control in the upcoming BankCoins and even some of the GovCoins. People will only appreciate the consensus based "freedom" of Bitcoin, when they see what Banks and governments will be doing with their coins in the future. <The public will have no influence in the decision making for those coins.>

If some developer or node does not agree with changes, then they are welcome to create their own Alt coin and if they get enough support, then they can force a hard fork, so there is nothing wrong with that idea in my opinion. 

BankCoins and GovCoins are more likely to be stablecoins so they will be pretty diffrernt comparing them to other currencires. There will be some purpose to buy them that will be related to issuer's service and won't be giving you a profit for HODLing them.
Also public should have an influence. I'm sure that banks won't sustain their coins if they won't be getting any profit.

Banks are not into Crypto currencies for pure profit, they want to use Crypto currencies because it gives them more control and also more opportunity to track the money flow. <Governments wants more surveillance opportunities on people's finances, so they encourage transparent Crypto currencies, where owners are identified and the Banks are utilized to implement this.

So, our financial freedom with Bank coins will not exist, once they developed their own technologies. <Governments will also find a way to force these coins onto citizens in the future> ….So say goodbye to fiat <cash> 

[Bowly88]

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  
• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
  
  
• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
  
  
• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them.  Just express what you feel confident about.

Obviously, bitcoin biggest asset is its freedom. You cannot please everyone, take that into your head. Going back, freedom is the biggest asset if bitcoin because it let its users to use it in everything they want. You can use it to buy your needs. You can also use it investment like in hodl. You can even use it for you to be able to play on fair  gaming sites  that everyone does for them to have enjoyment and to remove boredom. You can use it to almost everything, unlike the fiat money that it's like you have always been tracker to all of your transactions.

[rodel caling]

I think Bitcoin should stay anonymous as it is right now which makes it worth using (all cryptocurrencies basically).
And if that must follow some rules to make it worth continuing using it for than i'm ok with that as long it stays secure.

I agree bitcoin in recent time will stay anonymous but it's possible to find people how do control bitcoin as currency to ensure their security.

[BeGoods]

I think Bitcoin should stay anonymous as it is right now which makes it worth using (all cryptocurrencies basically).
And if that must follow some rules to make it worth continuing using it for than i'm ok with that as long it stays secure.

I agree bitcoin in recent time will stay anonymous but it's possible to find people how do control bitcoin as currency to ensure their security.

Thats why I adopted bitcoin, I used bitcoin because I was amazed by its anonymity. this is very innovative and very new.
so when there is a rule that requires anonymity to disappear, of course we are very disappointed with that