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.

[1714716403]

1714716403

[1714716403]

1714716403

[1714716403]

1714716403

[1714716403]

1714716403

[1714716403]

1714716403

[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