Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[kazuki49]

What am I missing here?

I agree with your points about open-source. His point I think is that if the leaders are taken down and the coin needs further leadership, it might be co-opted by changes from newly inserted lead devs.

The underlying point is that coins aren't truly decentralized because users are dumb and rely on lead devs to the do the right decisions.

lol thats always a danger, I agree with him them.

Yes, that is what I am pointing at. Because I believe that the devs of any truly anon coin will be considered 'enemies of the state' in the world that we live in. Unless they 'co-operate' ...

Its fine when the mkt caps are low, but if/when they become significant, I do not see how they will not become a prime target on the radar, with all the bullshit  and lies that comes with that

Yeah this chapter is yet to be written, thats what I meant with Bitcoin is not the one we are really looking for because it didn't incited these responses (by contrary the gov and banking system (wall st) are happily embracing it! lol)

[smooth]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

That is exactly what I am asking about. IMO that is not unlikely to occur in the event of significant traction and non-co-operation with TPTB. What happens to Monero in that scenario?

Same thing that happens to anything else with back doors in it. It's back doored.

What protection do we have against this for any technology of any type, at any time?

I think open source (including the possibly of forking if the current developers go off the rails, voluntarily or otherwise) is the best chance we've got. If you know of something better, please tell.

[phoenix1]

I believe either the anonymous coin needs to be truly done and able to run decentralized on auto-pilot, or the lead devs need to be anonymous so they can avoid prosecution. The prosecution of cryptographers has begun.

Note Monero has the same problems with centralization as Bitcoin. Thus it is not done.

^^this

It's all really fucking smart stuff ( and it is -  I am in no way intending to patronise) until it becomes big enough that 'someone' decides it needs 'attention'

[smooth]

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system.

MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering.

[kazuki49]

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system.

MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering.

I like his views, more and more I see MP for what he truly show he is, a true bitcoiner. I believe the same towards Monero.

[phoenix1]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

That is exactly what I am asking about. IMO that is not unlikely to occur in the event of significant traction and non-co-operation with TPTB. What happens to Monero in that scenario?

Same thing that happens to anything else with back doors in it. It's back doored.

What protection do we have against this for any technology of any type, at any time?

I think open source (including the possibly of forking if the current developers go off the rails, voluntarily or otherwise) is the best chance we've got. If you know of something better, please tell.

Smooth, I was seriously hoping that you were going to tell me that this was nothing to be concerned about. You seem like a 'stand-up' guy and you patiently answered all my questions about 21Inc the other day. I am just trying to get my head around what these technologies actually represent and what their limitations and risks are.  
 
No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)

[marcus_of_augustus]

I think open source (including the possibly of forking if the current developers go off the rails, voluntarily or otherwise) is the best chance we've got. If you know of something better, please tell.

Open source with a verifiable chain of hashed code changes is better ... so that you can see who has tried to slip in the backdoors as "trivial bug fixes"

[kazuki49]

I think open source (including the possibly of forking if the current developers go off the rails, voluntarily or otherwise) is the best chance we've got. If you know of something better, please tell.

Open source with a verifiable chain of hashed code changes is better ... so that you can see who has tried to slip in the backdoors as "trivial bug fixes"

you mean like github?

[smooth]

No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)

Fully anonymous devs with no reputation has its own set of problems. How do you know they aren't working for TPTB from the start?

I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

[phoenix1]

No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)

1)Fully anonymous devs with no reputation has its own set of problems. How do you know they aren't working for TPTB from the start?

2)I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

1) Totally agree
2) How does crypto go mainstream with this caveat?

Use as a currency is not so much affected but SOV is IMO. SOV requires that absolute trust, and if the power to hard fork exists, well, how can that trust co-exist ? Its just another form of centralisation with a different head

[shmadz]

No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)

1)Fully anonymous devs with no reputation has its own set of problems. How do you know they aren't working for TPTB from the start?

2)I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

1) Totally agree
2) How does crypto go mainstream with this caveat?

Use as a currency is not so much affected but SOV is IMO. SOV requires that absolute trust, and if the power to hard fork exists, well, how can that trust co-exist ? Its just another form of centralisation with a different head

Eventually the code will get ironed out and some kind of industry standard will become accepted as the base protocol layer for internet money.

We're not there yet, not by a long shot.

What really surprises me, is the anger and spite coming from the Gavin supporters. The vitriol and vehemence with which they attack anyone who has concerns about 20 MB blocks is unsettling.

[phoenix1]

Eventually the code will get ironed out and some kind of industry standard will become accepted as the base protocol layer for internet money.

We're not there yet, not by a long shot.

What really surprises me, is the anger and spite coming from the Gavin supporters. The vitriol and vehemence with which they attack anyone who has concerns about 20 MB blocks is unsettling.

That's just fine if 'internet money' is the goal (it is probably the most likely outcome regardless of the goal anyway). But it seems we have moved a long way from BTC as a stand-alone currency though with that statement.

I agree, the amount of vitriol in the debate about block size is very unsettling. It is putting personality back into the technology and damaging the idea of 'decentralised' and 'trustless' IMO

[shmadz]

Eventually the code will get ironed out and some kind of industry standard will become accepted as the base protocol layer for internet money.

We're not there yet, not by a long shot.

What really surprises me, is the anger and spite coming from the Gavin supporters. The vitriol and vehemence with which they attack anyone who has concerns about 20 MB blocks is unsettling.

That's just fine if 'internet money' is the goal (it is probably the most likely outcome regardless of the goal anyway). But it seems we have moved a long way from BTC as a stand-alone currency though with that statement.

I agree, the amount of vitriol in the debate about block size is very unsettling. It is putting personality back into the technology and damaging the idea of 'decentralised' and 'trustless' IMO

I think it's all necessary. I mean, it's necessary for the system to fail before we can move forward. It's good to argue about this stuff now and experiment with different strategies, but if you really want to build an anti-fragile system, you're gonna have to let it go and watch it run it's course. If/when it fails or becomes co-opted you can hopefully analyze and determine where it went wrong, make changes, re-iterate and try again.

We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.

[phoenix1]

Well put

[TPTB_need_war]

No, I know of nothing better (other than anonymous devs in undisclosed locations perhaps)

Fully anonymous devs with no reputation has its own set of problems. How do you know they aren't working for TPTB from the start?

How do we know that named devs aren't working for TPTB? I am nearly sure Gavin is (unwittingly or consciously makes no difference really, he is pragmatic).

I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

[TPTB_need_war]

2)I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

2) How does crypto go mainstream with this caveat?

Masses trust the herd. Just get the herd moving in one direction and they all follow.

[TPTB_need_war]

We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.

Especially since it was designed to disrupt those who are wanting to disrupt that control system. I am not speculating about intentions; rather I am stating factually what Satoshi's design is and has accomplished.

Edit: the caveat I repeat is that Bitcoin has network effects and the Butterfly effects and serving as a reserve currency of potential altcoins raises the possibility that Bitcoin is a Trojan horse on itself.

[knight22]

We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.

Especially since it was designed to disrupt those who are wanting to disrupt that control system.

What do you mean by that?

[NewLiberty]

Gavin's allusion to Greg overextending himself is an example of his pragmatism and balance. Gavin made choices based on being able to deliver, not based on what is ideal. My successes have come from being more like Gavin. My failures have come from being more like Greg.

Fundamentally, Gavin has assigned himself this problem.  He is diligently canvassing and curating opinions on the problems and methods of resolving them.
It can be frustrating work, but it is fully necessary.

He is getting a lot of help in this effort so it is not merely a contest of wills and personalities.  Also...Both Greg and Gavin are on the same team and not opposed, though their weighting of the priority of tasks may differ, so it is not really so much a matter of winner/loser.

[iCEBREAKER]

guys like marcus, tvbcof, and iCE are bombastic, antagonistic, fear mongerers that seldom contribute any meaningful theoretical discussion here.  they usually attack first by suddenly appearing out of nowhere throwing bombs and vicious name calling; usually at me.  i can easily take it but i've seen them do it to other ppl too.  they are extremists and unfortunately want Bitcoin to wallow in it's own small little corner here in the US & Europe.  which is quite ironic given their objectives.  i just don't think they realize what the hell they're doing.

i can kinda be that way too but usually in self defense.  but at least i'm willing to engage in deep thought, talk openly, ask questions, acknowledge not knowing some things, or ask for help.  these guys are like terrorist know-it-alls that have no remorse.

Now we know you've lost it.  Marcus is among the top 10 most intelligent and articulate posters here, just like you used to be.

He's never joined our Monero Fan Club AFAIK.  Perhaps you're confusing him with aminorex (another preeminent mind who has)?

"Vicious name calling?"  Tell your therapist all about how the mean kids refused to let you be the boss of Bitcoin.

You can't handle becoming the butt of harmless jokes and being nicknamed Frap.doc without resorting to playing the "terrorist" card?  Wow...

You are becoming unhinged and need to take a vacation.

Your all-in in support of the Gavinista's 20mb block putsch has been demonstrated to be based on flawed calculations (as tweeted by ptodd and nszabo).

The operator of the largest pool in China is on record schooling Gavin on the stupidity of rushing giant blocks:

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html

That's why Gavin is backpedeling to 8MB.  You should join his retreat, instead of picking the wrong hill to die on (along with your credibility).