Topic: Bitcoin decentralization debate (Read 575 times)

But on other hand, upgrade/addition to Bitcoin network need some amount of support in order to be activated. People also have freedom to choose Bitcoin wallet which suitable for them where usually they can switch between different wallet.


Actually it's wrong. Most miner don't run full node and simply connect to pool through Stratum protocol[1]. Basically pool send mining task to miner and miner send the result to the pool.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Stratum_mining_protocol

i hope you have learned that the "backward compatibility" trick core uses now means there is now no longer a UASF nor UAHF operation to activate new features. because since 2016 a user required activation has no longer been required

instead its done via a coalition of economic(popular services) nodes (~50 services) agreeing to only see a certain versionbit of blocks after  certain date, thus threatens the mining pools to comply just to stay visible to such services. and knowing the partnership(sponsorship) that core devs have from those economic nodes. you start to see the centralisation pattern

code doesnt write itself and user nodes are not required to run new code for a feature to activate. thus the control is not decentralised

learn lessons from the past using available current/historic public code releases/features and also block data.(not social group PR scripts) then you can learn what to watch out for to stop it getting worse(more centralised)

but im going to guess with your 7 years of involvement, if you have not learned the abusive utility of the backward compatibility trick to not require user majority to activate a feature. you sure as hell dont seem to want to learn. but i hope it changes soon before you fall further down the hole you dig for yourself

pretending its fully decentralised to stroke people to sleep is not healthy for the network.. ignorance is not a defence.. instead recognising central points of failure and highlighting them to keep them from repeatedly abusing their control techniques.

hold them to account. make them accountable for their actions
code doesnt write itself and those that write it dont receive money for nothing, they get paid for a reason. research it

You have a good understanding of how system updates and wallet tools can lead to centralization. Its like when people say, "Im unique"; technically, everyone is, but we all have something in common. In the same way, Bitcoin is a leader in decentralization, but some of its parts are naturally more controlled. Its...not easy. I mean, if we look into how mining works, we'll find that a few big mining pools control most of the hashing power. Isnt that centralized?

But you got it right when it comes to storing info. Every worker has a copy of the whole chain, which is about as decentralized as you can get. Its a data network with control hubs in the middle. Not the same, right? But its the differences between Bitcoin and blockchain that make them so strong and special. Control and division are like those friends who rarely agree but cant live without each other. This tug-of-war makes sure Bitcoin stays strong.

Bitcoin is centralised if we take a look at how the protocols are being updated: additions are performed by a small (mostly anonymous) group of people. Moreover, wallet tools and the companies which create and update wallets also bring in some degree of centralisation. We can't say that any project is fully decentralised. But we can evaluate the degree of decentralisaton, which is very high in blockchain projects, especially when we compare them with digital fiat systems. The main thing here is data storage: every mining facility stores the whole blockhain. So, in this aspect, the system is highly decentralised. As for control, I think that decentralisation degree and possibility to control the system are not connected with each other.

you might want to check actual events of bitcoin history 2015-2023 and not just repeat a philosophy of 2009
we are no longer in the same network landscape or approach to updates as 2009-2014

users do not update their software and then a new rule activates when the network is node majority ready.
check out the 2015-2023 philosophy about "backward compatibility" but read it with scrutiny about how it causes user nodes to not be part of the network vote.

it will enlighten you
then check out how core in november 2016-june 2017 did not even get 45% accomplishment to activate their feature, then suddenly with the proposal of the mandatory activation suddenly core got an UNNATURAL 100% activation by august

look at the REKT campaigns of 2015-2023 where anything that was different to cores roadmap plans were treated as 'control attempts' and were made into pushing for those branks to 'fork off into an altcoin or else'

even the delusional doomad keeps saying 'anyone can fork the network and create their own altcoin and see who follows them' where he keeps shouting the only path for non-core nodes to make changes is via making an altcoin and seeing if they can populate another network..

so try to read actual code of actual activation methods, and how activations since 2015 have not needed the mass of user nodes to be network secure ready to verify a new feature before such feature activates.. and then realise the security risk of such method

Yes, decentralization implies various actors; no one said its all about individual nodes! But its laughable that you think CORE, is some omnipotent puppeteer in this scenario. The essence of Bitcoin's decentralization is the consensus mechanism. If CORE developers released malicious or unwanted changes, nodes wouldnt adopt them, making them meaningless

Your rather ill-conceived notion that users merely "follow" code is so reductionist. In reality, users choose which software they want to run, demonstrating their power of choice. If a significant portion of users decides not to follow a certain update, the network will fork, as history has evidenced.

And as for your dramatic allegation that dissenting opinions are "attacked as an enemy," wake up! Open source means open discussions. Just because someone's proposal isnt adopted doesnt mean they're branded enemies. It means their proposal wasnt good enough or didn't align with the project's ethos. Look forward, adapt, evolve, and lets be grateful for the learning opportunities that come from challenges rather than wallowing in misguided cynicism

non mining(user) nodes, and economic(services) nodes dont write the code that propose rule changes.. and (as you adore) the non mining user nodes are not even part of the vote due to the lack of needing to upgrade (you love the backward compatible zero node vote) for the method of network feature activations

also there is a difference between bad idea's dont activate.. which is how decentralisation should work and did work 2009-2016.. vs mandated activation without a consensus vote of majority whether good or bad.. which core utilises 2017+

you dont want consensus vote. you want mandated activation followed by opt-in to remain full node after the fact..
YOU are the one promoting tyrannical methods of control..

YOU dont want multiple brands offering their own proposals. funnier part is core did not even get 46% decentralised vote before they were aided by their sponsors in mid 2017 to implement the mandated activation trick before their contractual deadline

look at all the REKT campaigns you got involved in, and the many attempts to stop people even at the conversation stage where there was not even code, you tried to stop them offering anything before even letting the community have a choice

i do laugh that you defend core devs as gods but dont care about the actual network issues some of cores actions has caused.
also funny how you pretend to care when it suits your agenda. and dont care when it doesnt. EG you didnt want anything done to fix the ordinal bloat. though then cry about being against bloat due to hardware cost of non miners..
funny part is anyone that even suggested a fix you treated as an enemy before any fix code was released

also if you calculate the cost of a hard drive to store say 14 years of current data plus 5 years of future data (under standing most upgrade hardware every 2-6 years) you would calculate the daily cost of such hardware is far far less than a TX

so if you care about users daily costs of using the network.. FEES are the ultimate consideration.

if people are not transacting daily on the network. but instead using other networks you prefer them to use, they wont want to leave their PC on each day to secure the bitcoin network because for months they are locked in/busy using other networks. which is another flaw in your agenda. you cant pretend offering people other networks will help secure bitcoin. when it involves pushing people away from the network with strategies like wanting high tx fees onchain

even funnier part is we all know cores plan for these other networks is so the routing middlemen(cores sponsors) can get their ROI for their investments in features core wrote for them. so it is obvious you care more about the entities behind these schemes more than the bitcoin network

after all if we fix the fee issue onchain.. then no one will want to use the silly offchain subnetworks you advertise. meaning the core devs dont meet their obligations of their sponsorships and their sponsors dont get their ROI
so you are incessant about keeping core in control and treating anything thats proposed that doesnt fit the core roadmap as an enemy

People whose ideas are fundamentally harmful to the health of the network are treated as opposition.  If you don't want people to treat you like the enemy, stop proposing tyrannical, fascist bullshit or demanding that people contribute a heavier burden that they would like in order to secure the chain.  Non-mining node operators don't receive remuneration for their service to the network.  You are being selfish to ask them to contribute more in order for other to get cheaper transaction fees.  They will offer more throughput when THEY deem it appropriate, not when you whine about it. 

a decentralised network has many aspects.. the one you forget is that its not just individuals running code. its WHOS code they are running
you keep trying to avoid conversations about where CORE(as their namesake admits) are the central controller of that code that everyone follows and references.
nodes dont even need to run the most uptodate software for core to activate a rule change. as you know by your beloved "backward compatible" feature and mandatory activations with economic node group. meaning its the not independent general users running nodes that have power.

the power is more centered amongst the devs that write the code and the SERVICES(economic node group) that users rely on to spend funds with. the users just FOLLOW the code made by devs and the services they intend to spend funds with.

users dont need to write code to be on the network and those that do write their own code would be treated as opposition/rivals if they even try tried to have conversations about proposing a change that does not align to the core roadmap, let alone released their code to the general public to get officially REKT and treated as an attack rather than a decentralised option.

the path you prefer is people to just shut up and follow cores law or attacked as enemy

It's nearly impossible to convince a conspiracy theorist of the opposite, because such believes are not based on reason, they are based on emotion. Conspiracy theories give an easy explanation why bad things happen - it's because bad people who operate from the shadows have a lot of power. Thinking that they know more than the others makes conspiracy theorist feel superior to them.

You can't convince all people in this world to think rationally, often that would be a waste of time.

I understand that decentralisation does not involve fucking make-believe.  A decentralised network involves people running real code that actually exists.  If you don't code it, then you can't have have it.  Whine less.  Code more.

there he goes again his entire mindset is that the only option is one entity having power where the choice has to be oppositional of 2 rival entities.. where he thinks that its a franky vs core thing..
.. he totally does not understand the meaning of decentralisation

as you can see by his adiration of only wanting core in command

without even releasing code he wants to REKT all attempts before they have a chance... this is why many devs dont bother. whats the point when idiots like him campaign to treat anything not core as an enemy.. and core themselves moderate out any discussion that goes against their roadmap.

I'd have more respect for you if you did produce some code, you whiny gas-bag.  All you have is hot air.  All noise, no substance.  Don't sit there crying about change if you aren't going to put some actual effort in.





Don't just say it.  Do it.  Fly your banner with pride if it's what you truly believe in.  But you won't.  Because you are entirely lacking in spinal fortitude.  No fucking backbone.  Just more crying.



Translation:   franky1 wants a veto to block anything he doesn't personally approve of.  He claims he cares about majority, but he wants the minority to hold all the cards.  Get REKT.

funny part is doomad thinks i have proposals/code i release and get rejected..
and thats he default go to rebuttal. .. funny thing is i have not released a branded node to the public to offend his religion.. but he keeps thinking i have and do

i have to keep reminding him i have yet to release any code to the public. i have made no attempts to form cults or take control for myself.. my comments are not about any replacement of one power for another power.. its about decentralising the already existing central point of failure.
thus debunking his silly narrations of his scripts. funny part is he calls me a totalitarian wanting control by taking over the network. he calls me a totalitarian even though im not the one controlling things.. .. yet  how can i control something if im not the sole person/brand in control nor ever demanded such powers (unlike core)
real facts show core are the ones in control already. but doomad doesnt want people to talk about cores power in that way

im the one saying that bitcoin needs decentralisation of brands.. where many brands get to propose openly.. he does not like non-core club proposing or releasing code outside of core of new news/features.. he is the one that loves totalitarian control and likes to point the fingers away from where the control currently is and pretend its others that want control..

he loves to treat core as gods to show their power when it suits him. but pretends core dont exist and tries blaming anyone else, especially those that have not even released a node publicly (he blames forum commenters and asic machines)
he doesnt like any discussion about revealing that core have too much power and pretends when it suits him that core do not control the code, but debunks himself when it suits him when he wants to kiss ass admire them

the actual scenario that should occur is that no one has control(its called decentralisation). where anyone could propose without REKT attack of being treated as an enemy that should be thrown off the network just for proposing a different option to core. and instead where any ideas get shared and only the best idea's get built into code and adopted by all brands and then activated when the network is deemed safe enough to verify data that uses the new rules (majority readiness)..

doomad and his clan of religious followers do not want anyone outside the sponsored lobby group of core, asking/telling core what to do. no petitions no protests. no majority network rejection of core, instad he loves just letting core do as core desire without scrutinity outside their club. sounds authoritarian to me

especially when he doesnt want the majority network to have an ability to reject a core bug/flawed/cludgy code update

doomad and his chums have swallowed the religious pill of trusting devs control/power, not decentralised protocols(which core have disrupted and abused)

but hey doomad wont ever tell people to watch scrutinise, review core dev that makes code for rule control of the network. but will pretend anyone non core are an enemy ..

he should learn one day that treating human devs as gods is not the purpose of bitcoin. bitcoin HAD a solution to the byzantine generals problem to not need to trust devs. but instead he loves core being the sole general of the network

and thats bitcoins weakspot. the adoration of the central point of failure like a religion

It's beyond adorable that you ever thought it was about being "fair".  Not all proposals are equal.  Bad ideas don't deserve the same level of consideration as good ideas.  You don't get an award for participating here.  You had years to make a compelling argument and you failed.  Cry harder.

Strength in numbers versus lone crybaby isn't a fair fight.  It never was and never will be.

Your ideas are weak.  Simple as that.

Bitcoin will stay decentralized as long as you can keep it decentralized. In simple words, if you know how to keep your assets and privacy safe, it will become decentralized and out of anyone's control except for you. As long as you hold the key, you will have full control over your assets. The price? No one controls that but we the users do. Based on demand and supply. Buy and sells. One person or an organization can control Bitcoin's movement or do any major impact. Sometimes influencers are saying this and that could lead to a price pump or dump, but that's totally on people's emotions. It is a sentimental situation where the price moves in either direction. But at the end of the day, we are doing the trades to make that difference.

You have told your friend all about Bitcoin I assume. Don't skip the bad parts and tell him all the good ones. Tell him everything about it. Good, bad - everything. Then it's his personal choice if he wants to accept it or not. Not everyone will be willing to adopt Bitcoin. Pushing it in their throat will only make things difficult. Let that be their own choice. You have done your job, now it's their choice to take it or not.

That will NEVER happen. The miners know the rest of the community would never follow them in such a chain. What probably might happen is, as Paul Sztorc tweeted, is an MASF to activate BIP-300.


If given a situation of "life or death", that's probably the compromise that could get community consensus.

Although, it's debatable if it can be done through MASF.

there are many sections of the bitcoin ecosystem
starting with most decentralised to least decentralised

key owners: decentralised milllions of keys, millions of devices, hundred countries+
full nodes archiving blockchain: decentralised tens of thousands of nodes, tens of thousands of locations, hundred countries+
asic miners: decentralised thousands of locations dozens of countries
pools: semi centralised dozens of pools handful of countries(cloud hosting services)
hashpower: semi centralised though lack of majority(<50% in one pool)

decision makers of the base network rules: centralised 6 lead maintainers working within one brand sponsored and lobbied by corporations

the weakest point of failure is the code developers that manage decide and implement the protocol level rules and no im not talking able the other brands that just follow rules and have different coded GUI, im talking abot the main rules of the networks decision makers.. and again for the multiple time that common sense needs to be mentioned. bitcoin was not created by god or AI. it was created via devs. so we need to watch review and scrutinise them and even have ways to veto them should they do shady crap

anyone saying dont scrutinise core devs and dont petition/protest against them are they types of people that want totalitarian control . we need to decentralise the decision makers

Yes, there's nothing to be funny at all. But in order for your friend to understand the decentralized nature of bitcoin, he should first know the basics of bitcoin. How can you explain to him when bigotry is taking over his mind? Please give him basic concepts and knowledge about bitcoin and they are easy to find on internet. I think the bitcoin's whitepaper will be helpful for both you and your friend in this case. Just by reading it, he will understand somewhat what the decentralized nature of bitcoin is.

This is not funny at all, just look at the amount of opinions and differences that exist in this thread only and you will know how much more complicated the issue is than you think. I thought it was simple at first, then I discovered through these opinions that decentralization is much more complicated than we think.

Then what is Google? Is Google a "god" who knows everything? It is just a search engine that gives you links to pages written by ordinary people who present their ideas as we do here in this thread, just opinions that may be true and may be wrong.