Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

Since the majority of nodes in the beginning ran the bitcoin core, that core became the spec, and any other implementation that deviated from the core would be kicked out of the system.

I think the best course of action would be to acknowledge that the prototype has served its purpose and retire it in favour of treating a non-prototype codebase as the reference implementation for which a specification can be written.

Even if we did this, and put a large amount of open effort into creating the a new perfect core, we would still have the above issue. That core would be the specification if the majority ran it, including all of it's unknown bugs.

What we should aim for is at least three full node implementations in the wild, with no single implementation having majority usage.

Also, a clear spec with extensive testing of each implementation's correctness.

As soon as we make a transition away from a monoculture (one implementation has a majority), we'll have an upper bound on the severity of likely chain forks. If 1 of n implementations disagrees with the other (n-1), then it's clearly a bug in that particular implementation that should be fixed.

The worst case scenario is a bug that causes more than one implementation to diverge at the same time, but that's no worse than what we've already been through in the past and the odds of that happening can be continually reduced with a good QA program.

That sounds like an ideal plan. Not sure how to put it into action though. The current blocksize debate if anything shows how the current devs have conflict of interests in even considering this as a direction.

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

[rocks]

The irony, is we are seeing political positioning to maintain centralization, and the politicians are arguing that there version of centralized power is needed for decentralization.

It is highly ironic isn't it....

Humans as a species seem to love leaders and centralized decision making, we must be wired for it. Every example of a decentralize economic & political system that humans have organized (early US, early Rome are two examples) have been short lived and degenerated into the inevitable command and control organization model. But that's a different topic.

[smooth]

The result is if the majority of nodes run a common set of code, that code becomes the specification even if the code deviates from the spec. The majority will follow that deviation, because it is the code they are running. If you think about it, that is exactly what a hard fork is. A hard fork is a majority of nodes agreeing to deviate from the existing specification. This holds true whether the hard fork was intentional or if the hard fork was unintentional (due to a bug).

if the code is the specification then the code can't deviate from the specification. What happens if the code fails to converge to consensus is that the specification/code is proven to be broken, in which case the majority is forced to accept a change to the specification if they want to have a consensus system. In other hard-fork cases the majority may choose to accept a change, but it isn't forced.

Agree with Justus about multiple implementations.

[justusranvier]

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

[Odalv]

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

Bitcoin is protocol. -> valid chain of blocks filled with transactions

[Carlton Banks]

Agreed on all this formalise the spec talk, but this could only be another big (and possibly another fractious) debate at this stage of bitcoin's development. If you can get every interested party in the bitcoin development arena to agree, at this stage in the project, I'd be impressed. It would be best overall though, genuine marketplace for implementations. And a marketplace for forking too, but that's clearly coming anyway at some point or other, better to embrace it and keep the barriers to entry low.

[rocks]

Agreed on all this formalise the spec talk, but this could only be another big (and possibly another fractious) debate at this stage of bitcoin's development. If you can get every interested party in the bitcoin development arena to agree, at this stage in the project, I'd be impressed. It would be best overall though, genuine marketplace for implementations. And a marketplace for forking too, but that's clearly coming anyway at some point or other, better to embrace it and keep the barriers to entry low.

Let's not forget that the fact it is near impossible to get agreement on changes, is a very strong feature of Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.

enough with the hints, spill the beans please.

The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention:

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996

[cypherdoc]

I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.

enough with the hints, spill the beans please.

The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention:

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996

i also like iCELatte.  has a nice ring to it.

[cypherdoc]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

[kazuki49]

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer.

[Adrian-x]

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer.

if they get there way, they wont have any power to change things it will be a democracy of users who decide, luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet. 

[justusranvier]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

[rocks]

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

Start spec sheet drafting through the process of developing a common testing framework for multiple separate implementations. That's interesting and could practically work.

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

[Adrian-x]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I agree, it will be easier for users to switch next time, this time is the hard one, power hungry developers are going to defend their castle.  

[Adrian-x]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/

[smooth]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.

based smooth! Thats what I mean, I feel good knowing Monero is in good and self-aware leadership hands.