To ensure Bitcoin's safety, we need to overthrow ALL of the powers that be.

[Jon]

No higher powers. No authority over Bitcoin's protocol. That is all I am truly calling for.

DeepBit, the current Bitcoin dev team, even the client itself are all targets waiting to be corrupted. Anything with major influence is a threat to Bitcoin's stability and long-term survival. One unthoughtful mistake, bribe or ulterior motive could plunge the Bitcoin protocol into an irrecoverable freefall and lead to total loss of trust in Bitcoin altogether.

We need to reduce Deepbit to less than 15% of the computing power so no change approved by its leader has a majority. We need to have countless competing dev teams with varying processes to keep the protocol in check.

We need to have no masters, no leaders and no cult of personalities. No man can stand higher than the Bitcoin protocol itself.

It needs to be made immortal. You can help. You can demand change and revolution. Contest the status quo every chance you get. Criticize, Criticize, Criticize. Question all men that want to change Bitcoin's protcol.

What does not remain standing is not fit to live. Let us all be vigilant and bring Bitcoin into the bright future it deserves and not stagnation and corruption by higher powers.

[Daily Anarchist]

I don't understand all of the ramifications of a hashing power takeover attack. But it seems totally within the realm of possibility to me that a few key mining pools could be taken over to cause some sort of havoc. I mean two or three of the biggest mining pools acting in accordance could succeed in 51% of mining power.

I don't really see how this is avoidable, however, or even the ramifications.

[rjk]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

[Jon]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

I called for multiple competing dev teams. I just don't want a single central one.

[rjk]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

[Jon]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions.

The miners need security to continue doing business. They have the direct incentive to form dev teams if no one else will.

[rjk]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions.

That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously.

[Jon]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions.

That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously.

A more subtle patch could find its way forced in by bribery and through Gavin's singular influence. Deepbit could ignite massive support by bandwagon.

Changes need to take more consideration to be passed. More individual entities need to exist. There needs to be gridlock for less-than-important changes.

[rjk]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions.

That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously.

A more subtle patch could find its way forced in by bribery and through Gavin's singular influence. Deepbit could all ignite massive support by bandwagon.

Changes need to take more consideration to be passed.

Not a chance. All changes are extremely open and public, and it would be impossible to "slip something by". If you cared, you would follow the commit changes, because even if you can't code, it is still relatively easy to figure out what change has been made by reading the diffs. Not only that, but hundreds of users do follow the commits, and would raise all kinds of hell in the event of something odd happening.

[Jon]

So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?

Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.

Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams.

You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes?

If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions.

That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously.

A more subtle patch could find its way forced in by bribery and through Gavin's singular influence. Deepbit could all ignite massive support by bandwagon.

Changes need to take more consideration to be passed.

Not a chance. All changes are extremely open and public, and it would be impossible to "slip something by". If you cared, you would follow the commit changes, because even if you can't code, it is still relatively easy to figure out what change has been made by reading the diffs. Not only that, but hundreds of users do follow the commits, and would raise all kinds of hell in the event of something odd happening.

I want it to be thousands of users. I want the hell raised to be much stronger. That's all. I think the current checks and balances are still too passive.

[Jon]

What ruins constitutional republics is a passive populace. Liberty requires constant vigilance.

[hazek]

That's it, you're getting on my ignore list. It's obvious you haven't the faintest idea how Bitcoin works and you're basically just trolling.

[Jon]

That's it, you're getting on my ignore list.