Topic: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) - page 2. (Read 628 times)

Ignoring all the franky stuff.

I've been in this space since 2012 and this is the first time I hear about the axiom of resistance.

I thought that it was self evident for most of the bitcoin community that we want to build something that is resistant in all sort of ways. One of the big problems with a bank account is that it can be frozen by the government that has jurisdiction over that bank. If bitcoin could not resist government force it would only take us half-way to economic freedom.

The government also stands for the people in a society, if your money can be controlled by other people, in this case the government, then it's not really your money, at least to the extent that it is being controlled, or able to be controlled by other people. And that extent is absolute. The government can freeze your account, potentially even take the money for themselves (civil forfeiture).

Describing the futility of your efforts is not an insult.  You can't think of a viable way to prevent softforks.  How is it an insult to point out the simple fact that what you want isn't practical?  Stop dodging the real issue here.  You hate SegWit and Lightning, but you can't stop them.  So you make up a story and hope people buy it.  But you've now repeated the story so often that you believe it, as though it were actually true.  It isn't.  There was no consensus bypass.  Because there's no such thing.  Individuals can't prevent softforks.  Everyone is free to do what they want, but they can't stop others from doing the same.  If you break consensus, you get forked off. 

(yawn)(laugh)
all i see is insults
time to ignore him as he is just after some social drama.
moving on. ill just let doomad drive himself in circles
i gave him months to talk to devs.
i gave him months to research actual code
i gave him months to research devs desires(roadmap)

i will give him praise
him saying one team controlling code is good. letting in trojans is good and making the blockchain stagnate while other networks evolve is good. really does show his motivations are not that of a "bitcoiner". hope devs give him the christmas bonus he must be hoping for.

With the frequency you use them, they're clearly your buzzwords now.  Maybe one day you'll figure out no one cares.



No, I said individuals couldn't veto it.  Nothing anyone can do.  The community, if in agreement, can absolutely veto things they don't approve of.  Like how they vetoed 2x nodes staying connected to the network.  An individual couldn't have disconnected them all.  It took lots of people for that to happen.  You can't veto me using SegWit.  And I honestly don't see why you'd think you have the right to.  If the whole community wanted to veto me using SegWit, that would be a different story.  I'd then be the one pissing into the wind.  But no, it's you doing that.  Again.



If we used your perverted definition of consensus, which is "it's only consensus when Franky1 agrees with it", sure.  Back in the real world, though, consensus is not determined by a statistic on a given day of your choosing.  Consensus is constant and unyielding.  It's happening right now and it says SegWit is fine.  You are failing the consensus test every time you say devs are in control.  You are failing the consensus test if you think a past date is more important than the code people are running right now, this very second.  You are failing the consensus test if you think you get to tell users and developers what they can or can't do.



Okay, cool, whatever.  Enjoy your "tyranny" of total freedom.  I take it you aren't going to answer those questions about how you'd prevent softforks then?  Figured as much.  I'll accept that as your failure to present a valid formative stance, let alone find a practical path to achieve a predetermined goal.  You don't know what you want and you wouldn't know how to get there if you did.  

(facepalm)
but the community didnt all run it.
segwit activated where by pools did not have to run segwit code
segwit activated where by node did not have to run segwit code

segwit got activated no matter what the community decided.. there was no consensus in august 2017

you and the devs admit to it "compatability" is your buzzword for the consensus bypass
devs admit to it "inflight upgrades" "bilateral split" as their buzzwords

i am laughing that you flip flop so much saying the community agreed. when they didnt
thats stats done lie. segwit only had 35% actual agreement before the bypass tricks

it wasnt just a me vs the world is was 65% vs core. i find it funny that you think its was just me opposing it.
you say it yourself many times the community couldnt veto it.

so end your flip flopping because all your doing is meandering the topic into social drama.

core FAILED the consensus test. november 2016 -summer 2017 (35% not 95%)
but core couldnt take no for an answer. core didnt want to accept consensus so they then bypassed it with the other bip that had a mandatory date where pools and nodes would get banned and blocks rejected.
and where those that didnt vote would be supplied with stripped data, make them second class no longer full nodes.

that was NOT consensus that was tyranny

anyway

a) not to use the summer 2017 bypass bip and stick to the original consensus bip used in 2016(and prior)
b) adding things without network consent...... um ever heard of trojans
c) its not my idea.... 65% of the community didnt want segwit
     also to highlight. i am not controlling or causing any tyranny..
     i have not made code for the community to use. my software is for my use
     code i make has no mandatory crap in it. and does not have any consensus bypass crap

     so to ultimately to destroy your meanders.. there is no point you getting upset by me. all i am doing is talking.
     but it is funny that you think i am controlling/ causing tyranny. and all the other empty insults you make.

anyway even now.. with it fully activated and a year later..
do you see 100% desire for segwit... nope. do you see 50% desire.. nope
the UTXO count. the amount of funds on segwit outputs. the fact that lukejr, sipa and btcc are still asking for funds using legacy addresses.. (thats the real funny)

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

It is the community's decision.  They have already decided.  If no one had run the softfork code, nothing would have happened.  No individual person can veto it when the community decide to support the idea.  I'm sorry if you see that as flip flopping because you don't understand how consensus works and somehow think you get to singlehandedly derail everything that other users of this network are supportive of.  Consensus has never meant you get to prevent people from either creating or running code that is implemented via softfork.  If you think that's how it works, show me in the code where it says that.

Earlier today, my friends and I ordered pizzas as part of a deal that was on offer.  Three 12" pizzas for £21.  Those are the "rules" in this particular deal.  So we had one each.  But you can still add stuffed crust and extra toppings if you like.  So even though my two friends had the standard pizzas with no extras, I added some Mexican Chicken and stuffed crust to mine.  It had no impact on their pizzas.  They got exactly what they wanted.  They didn't resent me for adding additional stuff to mine.  We all got what we asked for.  What's the problem there?  I guess you would have thrown a fit over that.  "How dare someone add extra stuff without my prior consent and approval?  My consensus has been bypassed!"  



Code means nothing if no one runs it.  Your problem is that people are running it.  You wish they wouldn't, but you can't stop them.  



You have a choice.  You've already made it.  Despite having made your choice, you still feel entitled to bitch about the choice everyone else is making.



What's wrong is that you can't argue your point, so you avoid the questions and start repeating "social drama" like it's a pull-string on your back.  You're meandering.  Answer the questions:

a) What's your "fix" to prevent softforks?  
b) Why do you think anyone other than you would even want to prevent softforks?
c) Are you happy to compromise permissionless freedom to satisfy your desire to veto any ideas you personally disagree with?

You don't have an answer to any of those questions because the only solution you can come up with is for you to tell the devs they can't do it.  And then you know I'll point out that's something a totalitarian fascist would say.  So by all means keep avoiding the inevitable outcome where you reveal yourself to be an authoritarian who hates freedom.  It's not an insult if it's a clear observation of your natural tendencies.

Every time you say "developers have too much control", I hear "developers have too much freedom" and that you want to take that freedom away.  You can't prevent softforks without taking away freedom.  Cause and effect.  No amount of complaining about what I'm saying or how I'm saying it will change the fact that what you want isn't possible unless you're comfortable with destroying the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin.  

Because craig isn't a real satoshi nakamoto it been a long time discussing how is the real satoshi but nobody can tell on this.

Craig their reputation aren't qualified to bieng real satoshi as creator of bitcoin, craig have an many case involvements like drug related and scam accusations according to the news i heard before.

this have to disagree with. as there are over 20 "tagged" pools. but even within those tags. theres actually more stratum servers. and different facilities/users. you would be shocked at how diverse things actually are...

but here is the thing no matter how much hash power a block is created with. if it doesnt fit the rules it gets rejected. yep a block could be created with zetahash(1k exa) and still get rejected.
pools dont code the rules. all a pool can do is include or exclude transactions.. not change rules

also the worry of centralisation... via the propaganda of "china 50%"
china dont have 50% no where near 50%

but playing devils advocate. if china did have 50%... pools dont make the rules


ill agree that third party services are controlled by authorities now. but thats because they are tied to fiat. years ago people were thinking bitcoins utility should be aimed at buying products with it. thus not rely on fiat gateways(exchanges).. but the ethos has moved away from medium of exchange and is trying to be pushed to just be a FIAT tied investment of "store of value" for fiat lovers to get rich quick

but for bitcoin to remain safe we as a community should not rely on one team to control the code. and have any other team get rekt. as then the single team controlling the code. become corrupt. (as seen the last couple years)

more doomad flip flopping
EDIT: (shows how now doomad admits consensus wasnt reached and people didnt agree)
LOL.. gotta laugh at flip floppers

one minute, "its community decision.." next minute "there's nothing anyone can do to veto them" next minute "the community all agreed, apart from one person" next minute "consensus couldnt be reached"

anyway lets move on:

we should sheepishly abide by cores law?... do you even hear yourself?
come on.. take 2 steps back..
have an outer body experience of not defending a dev for just a couple minutes
just long enough to hear your own words as if through the ears of someone that doesnt want single control from one group

things WERE different in 2009-2013 where the community did have a choice and things did cause issues and we seen orphan mechanism actually sort out issues.. but now. the lack of orphans show everything has turned to sheep

anyway doomad.. random people just running nodes dont CODE. running nodes doesnt change rules
the rules are CODE
rules can change via code changes that dont require a vote as "theres nothing anyone can do to veto them..."

then the issue is with those that code it.
you cant blame the community if the community dont have a choice.
you cant say the community had agreed if the community didnt have a choice

node users dont make rules. they dont make code. they just follow the rules of those that CODED the rules. having only one team CODE the rules is not freedom of choice.

i have told you that like over a dozen times.. your actually admitting what i said by you saying it tooo..but then you weirdly go into some social drama finger point that because i said it.. its wrong..

so
grand doomad. lord of all things. i applaud and honour you as the sole person that is highlighting that core can and do make changes without community consensus. i applaud you as king of knowledge that you admit that devs have and will continue to delay certain features, but then  rush others. all in the pursuit of their desires because you have highlighted that they should not report or have to listen to the community.

now you had your glory. no need for your flip floppy change of mind to defend a dev.
no need to throw insults
no need to meander topics
no need to finger point at non-devs

but still now you had glory. please go learn about the network and CODE. (atleast just to avoid flip flops and to stick to one side)

Such is the nature of softforks.  It's not some sordid secret devs have "admitted" or a crime they have confessed to.  That's just how softforks work.  Not every feature is practical to implement via backwards-compatible softfork, but for those that can be, there's nothing anyone can do to veto them (unless it's a majority of those securing the network vetoing them in unison).  Anyone is free to code it and anyone is free to run it.

If you can't abide by that:

a) What's your "fix" to prevent it?  
b) Why do you think anyone other than you would even want to prevent it?
c) Are you happy to compromise permissionless freedom to satisfy your desire to veto any ideas you personally disagree with?

---

I honestly don't see what developers have to do with what centralised exchanges and the SEC are doing.  The "resistance" property demonstrated by the longevity of the network is primarily the result of the people running the software.  Ordinary people strengthening the network purely by participating.  In a scenario where the state were to mandate that users had to register to a central authority or apply for a licence to be legally entitled to run the software, or even ban the use of the software entirely, how many people would comply with that?  I'd imagine it's about the same number who comply with the state's laws regarding peer-to-peer file sharing and copyright infringement, which is clearly not enough to prevent illegal file sharing from happening.

So with that in mind, if users and developers are hesitant to enact radical, sweeping changes to the protocol, or any changes that make it more costly to run a full node, it's precisely because they don't want to make it harder for people to resist if/when the state does attempt to use force against the network.  A network with fewer nodes will be inherently less resistant.

its not a social decision anymore.
1. multiple choice of differing proposals has been rekt off the network(2013-2016)
2. devs admit to doing inflight upgrades and that the mandatory activation and the people dont vote "due to compatibility"
(august 2017)

yes the devs admit it. which makes me laugh that certain people who want to get people distracted into social drama games of creating memes about people who dont even code... those people are not understanding there is no point in pointing fingers at pools, altcoins or just random scammers that dont code.

3. changes to code, need devs to write it.. if devs chose not to write code things wont change. so devs are at the centre of rule changes. again devs can now add more changes without users needing to upgrade."dont worry sheep its compatible"

..
trump can change laws without national elections.

by assuming its ok let them do it. is not resistance

satoshi(the real one) axiom of resistance was that the network should always use consensus (community majority (u call social decision of node users)) not the inflight mandatory stuff that has been seen to occur last year

bitcoins ethos and axiom of resistance of 2009 to 2013 is not the same as bitcoin now

Changing the code in the extents that considerably defeat or improve essential components of bitcoin related to state control resistance, features  like (pseudo) anonymity, censorship resistance, decentralization, ... is a social decision and not a developer's choice, no matter how influential and/or exclusive is the developer. Bitcoin is open-source and once the community is determined about a specific change, it will find its devs.

Your perception about Core devs is just exaggerative, my problem with these guys is not about what they do or have done, it is about what they are championing for: Doing just nothing!.

Bitcoin started as a beta version, a proof of concept for PoW and other brilliant ideas of Satoshi, after ten years so many challenges and threats have showed-up, ASICs and pools put decentralization in danger and centralized exchanges ruined privacy and anonymity of users and now SEC is drawing lines and enforcing its artificial "law"s by expanding its interpretation of securities.

This bitcoin is no longer a promising system for resisting against state control, imo. The power is finding a new way to neutralize or abuse bitcoin on a daily basis and our devs are insisting on keeping everything the same as always while the community is forgetting what bitcoin was essentially meant for: resisting state control.

Axiom of Resistance is about the desirability and feasibility of setting monetary system free from state control as a supposition i.e. a hypothesis which we do accept as an undisputable rule. So, it is not a goal or a feature, it was the main incentive and theoretical basis (both) for Satoshi to start designing bitcoin and it is now the main driving force behind bitcoin adoption by millions of people all around the world.

I'm just asking about how conscious are we about it and how do we define ourselves as a bitcoiner? I think a deep understanding of the axiomatic nature of bitcoin's state resistance is very helpful to bring us more closer to each other by understanding how noble and decent is our agenda.

trying to stay on topic

why do people think social drama, whales, pools and asic manufacturers can change the rules?
the axiom is that bitcoins rules are code. and pools asics and whales dont change code

its like politics
when trump does something bad. seems some people dont say trump needs to change his ways. but instead peoples axioms fail by saying "well its your fault trump signed a sanction/pressed a nuke button"
thus trying to assume trump shouldnt change and people shouldnt resist trump.. but just let trump do what he does my making the axiom into "blame yourself and be a sheep, just follow the law"

the real axiom(logic/common sense) is
people dont get a daily vote to resist state decisions made daily. so how can it be other peoples fault for what trump does..

wright is just drama
the price is just drama
pool hashpower is just drama

non of which can resist changes made to the code


to be able to resist. you first need to know who you should resist.
in politics. its not to resist the voter, or smear campaign the voter. because they have no sanction writing power or nuke button. the power is with the state legislators and trump. so to resist the state, you need to aim efforts at the state. and to offer the voter a option that gives voters a choice so that the state doesnt get automatic 'do as states please' control

bitcoins the same

franky,
Please, no longer 'bite' the bait. It is not about how we tear each other apart the Axiom of resistance against state control is the topic for the christ sake.

I've certainly never thought that Bitcoin needed government approval.  It's effectively self-legitimising.  So in that sense, it's resistant to not only state control, but also minority control.  It will always be what the majority of its users want it to be.   I wouldn't be harassing Franky1 if he dropped this ridiculous pretence of "developer control".  Being able to express preference simply through participation is immensely powerful.  That's where Bitcoin's resistance ultimately stems from.

To be more specific, an axiom is what we build a discipline (like cryptocurrency)  around it without any feedback from the discipline to the axiom. Although it is more likely for an axiom to be 'common sense compatible' it is not necessary at all.

Axiom of Resistance is the most beautiful thing about bitcoin, it provides bitcoin with its most crucial resource: hearts of people all around the world. We don't try to prove decentralization as a good thing, we don't try to prove it feasible and practical, we just try to achieve it, why?

It is because of the Axiom of Resistance, we believe in decentralization of money as a good future for human welfare and we believe that there is a way to achieve it, there should be, otherwise how is it possible to resist state control? 

I understand for most of you guys in US and Europe, bitcoin as a decentralized ecosystem is not a big deal, you could simply adopt with revisionism force empowered by whales, pools, ASIC manufacturers, ... as long as you (foolishly) feel safe about your treasures and opportunities but it is not the case for me and people like me who live in less developed regions of the world, here bitcoin, true bitcoin I mean, is our only hope.

to those confused by the term axiom
think of it like common sense

An axiom is a concept in logic. It is a statement which is accepted without question, and which has no proof.

craig wright thought he could axiom himself as satoshi..
(make a statement and people will just believe it as true and just say "yea it makes common sense that hes satoshi")
but people own axioms seen that wright couldnt even use his axiom correctly
(peoples own common sense seen that wright didnt even sound like the common perception of satoshi's personality)

Doomad,
Stop harassing franky for a while, do you believe in Axiom of Resistance?

YAWN - doomad typical reply to ignore topic and go straight to personal attack
running "compatible" is not agreeing. its being told theres no way to object without being thrown off. seems u forget there was no choice to stop segwit..
P.S your post is proof you did not even talk about the topic of wright and axiom.. like i said YOU meander off topic to then spark personal attack.
again if you dont like my opinion. click the ignore button

GAVEL.  It's called a gavel.  





And every other participant in the network who agrees with the present course.  Seems like you always forget about them somehow.