How do you feel about control versus freedom in Bitcoin?

[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