Topic: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists - page 2. (Read 7972 times)

Yes.  Your private keys give you the right to do whatever you want with your coins.  You can sell them, trade them, give them away, destroy them, hodl them, or anything else you damn well please.  That's entirely your business.  No one gives a shit.  

If, however, you think for a second that your authority extends beyond that point, then you show me in the code where it says that.

Or better yet, do what I've been saying all damn thread.  Modify the code.  You are free to create your own client, so you can implement your glorious new power structure in OligarchCoin.  See how the market reacts.  I'll even give you some code to get you started:


If you would happily sacrifice the very thing that gives Bitcoin its resilience so that you can stamp your authoritarian views on it, then you are a vile, insidious cancer and I trust the market to recognise you as such.

coins yes. you have the right to own them. but the network and coin are 2 separate things.
try not to confuse the matter by merging bitcoin the spendable fund unit. and bitcoin the network, purely because they are named the same thing.

this is why people prefer to refer to the coins as BTC rather than bitcoin. to help show what they are talking about.

btc is the private property of the private key holder.
bitcoin the network has no central location. it is made up of ~5200 diverse nodes with different codebases.
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from core v0.12
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from BU..

yet they are all running happily right now all validating transactions and relaying them, validating blocks and relaying them.
there is not and should not be a single location/jurisdiction limit of a node.
there is not and should not be a single codebase. (even you have said this by having the zero day bug debate.)

diversity and then concessions to form a consensus is how satoshi found the best route to growth.
the issues are that those opposing using consensus 'pretend' to have agreed and back track later. just to cause delays
the issues are that those opposing using consensus will demand everyone 'f**k off' to dilute the votes into their favour.

however if we just accept consensus is the only way.
then we can concentrate on getting the compromise where everyone is in majority happy.
which should have happened last year. before all the back tracking and flip flopping about splitting as the option while crying that splitting is a doomsday in the same sentence by the same people.

People having right to their private property = Freedom!

This is getting old now.  Consider even the slightest pretense of pleasantries spent.  


No one should have authority in Bitcoin.  That's the entire fucking point.  If you believe any person or group should have authority, you are a far bigger threat than any "forker" could ever be.  If you want authority, you signed up for the wrong thing.  We only have freedom here.

"Nobody owns or controls Bitcoin."

It's literally the biggest selling point.  Why do you insist on trying to fuck that up with your deluded authoritarian bullshit?  You act like you're "a Hero of Bitcoin" but I've heard Fox News presenters with a better grasp of the concept than you do.  They're renowned for being completely gormless, so if they can get it, what's your excuse?  You clearly don't understand this at all.

Well yes you have a point here, but why are people so stupid to hold the money in centralized exchanges. It is really shitty that money gets ceentralized, but this is how it is.

Maybe things like Bitsquare will break up exchanges a little bit.





Well I guess things are good as they are for now, I dont want anything to change, I just want people to be independent.

It works out well if you think about it:  Nodes & Miners vote, Bitcoin owners dictate -> If nodes and miners are naughty, the owners sell their coins as a form of protest.

Powers are balanced well, except that bitcoin owners dont have a public platform where they could express their opinions. Most people hold their financial privacy sacrosanct, so unless there would be an anonymous way to vote with verified bitcoin wealth, this could be an issue.

Something like this (BUT MORE TRANSPARENT & VERIFIABLE):
http://bitcoinocracy.com/

lol
and this is coming from someone that has more than enough to make a vote under your proposal
so now you want "greed" to dictate "protocol".
so now you want coinbase that hoards 500k peoples funds to have a large vote. purely by holding other peoples funds
im guessing the US marshals get a vote too. aswell as whoever holds the bitfinex stash.. these people should have more power?why?
screw it.. lets get the bitfinex hacker or winklevoss with 200k coins each to spread the coins over 9800 addresses. and dominate the vote
just being "rich" does not mean your smart

sorry but those with large funds should not dictate the rules of nodes. nodes should decide what they want to have.
if the rich want a vote on what the nodes should do then they should run a node themselves.. (wait for it).. they already do in most cases.
which brings the debate back to node count, followed by a second vote afterwards for a pool vote.

Let's not go that far yet, the bitcoin development is pretty good and not corrupted.

This is not like how the bitcoin foundation allegedly got corrupted.

So unless you can prove that the current bitcoin development team is corrupt like your local politicians, you should stop calling for their replacement.


Then I am not saying that people should not vote, everyone who owns bitcoin should have the right to vote, and I implied that the top 1000 users probably have 50%+1 share so their opinion counts.

If we discount the 1m BTC that satoshi left untouched (and probably wont be used to vote), maybe even the top 10,000 addresses make up the 50%+1 share. So yeah, that is not an "elitist" if we are talking about 10,000 addresses.

there are millions of bitcoiners.
but the votes are not done by the millions of lite-node/webwallet users.
relax its not hill billy jack or scouser jake voting for bitcoin rules. its usually smart people doing more then just "spending".

they are going to full node users/pool owners (usually smarter than average joe) and the 'pledge' they vote for is not made by the users but the devs (smarter then node operators) where the node operators vote for the pledge they deem best.

having just one pledge is bad. one leader is bad. thats a dictatorship

these pledges have been developed over time, with compromises and concessions in most cases, to ensure there becomes no single dictatorial ruler presiding or reigning over the network. but instead adjustments in all the pledges untill they all meet to get to a 95% agreement. allowing all parties to not be a central authority but all come to an agreement.

but as you say if it was opened up to a uninterested public vote of millions of people. it may end up like the UK talent show..
voting a dog as the most talented brit.. twice..
or
voting in politics, a pigs-head f**ker twice.

but suggesting only centralized elitists should vote, is worse.

I would have no problem with democracy in politics if people were smarter and more informed when voting, and of course given better candidates.

But bitcoin is not subject to public vote, it is wrong to consider bitcoin public property, while it has a public essence to it, in the sense that anyone can join, that doesnt make them automatically legitimate bitcoin authorities.

The only people that should have authority in bitcoin should be the bitcoin owners. So if the top 1000 bitcoin holders want Segwit, their wish should be granted, since they are the majority of the owners. Just like any company, this is the default organization system.

in the UK the royal family.. as someone who shant be named would say.. owns the country by right. and has then due to the peoples wish formed 2 oligarchies. the house of lords and the house of commons.. to have the authority over the country and manage her estate. and they would par-lay(negotiate) in a meeting place called parliament.
the queen invites her chosen people into authority in the lords chamber and the people choose their desire for who has authority in the commons chamber.
the queen still reigns over parliament and has veto power over any consensus agreed in parliament

this is still not good because there is still a power house that can become onesided.

many people now want local councils to have authority of their own area's while coming to a general agreement of national issues within parliament. without the oligarchy of 2 chambers.

american version would be the senators meeting at the senate to discuss U.S. national issues and come to an agreement, while still having local powers to do their own thing within the national rules.

however i see no point in one guy "presiding" over the senate, one women reigning over parliament with veto powers over any consensus made

Yes I agree, but the monarchy is a failed system because it centralizes power in the hand of 1 man or woman, and because of a lot of incest inbreeding between royalties, it sometimes creates crazy mentally ill kinds that become tyrants like Nero or Caligula.

So there has to be a balance between the powers, so that if 1 crazy person decides to do a stupid thing, others could block him, so an oligarchy is a more stable form of right wing.

Before the French revolution, anything Rightwing was pro-Aristocracy / Monarchy / Ancien Regime while anything leftwing was pro-Republicanism, or 'power to the people'. If you use that measure, any form of republicanism, aka a 'peoples government' or 'chosen government' is in reality leftist. This is why the Bolsheviks saw the French revolution as the predecessor to the Communist revolution. There's a reason why socialist countries always call themselves republics. To any European Monarchist, the US Republic is inherently leftist because of its Revolutionary roots -> rebellion against the authority and Monarchy of the United Kingdom.

This new system of left and right originated out of the US somewhere in the 19th century, and now they use an altogether different center point of the political spectrum and somehow they are right wing. Monarchists don't really like the fact that Republicans have hijacked the term right-wing, because in reality both the US republic and the now gone Soviet Republic are born from the same womb: the French revolution.

Not that I am a Monarchist. I've just met some and their viewpoint on things are really interesting.

ok drop the "upgrading at the same time". that is your failure of understanding.
because nodes are running right now and users will stagger their upgrades over time until there is 95% upgradeded. followd by grace periods. followed by mining pools upgrading at a staggered time period until they too have 95%. followed by a grace period.

knowing nodes will be running for a long time before blocks are made bigger. rules out alot of things. as it would be coded, reviewed, tested and implemented long before consensus..

after all many implementations are running already right now. no one is waiting for 2017. they have the code running now. code can be reviewed by anyone new wanting to use it now. and then run it way before anything actually happens.

but lets put the "upgraded at same time" rhetoric to one side. because as i said majority would have upgraded over a staggered period

but lets take something comparable to your subtle hint of a future bug
lets say your talking about a bug where going over 1mb reveals something no one realized before that only pops up when miners go over a certain number of bytes.(1,001kb for instance)
well then. we have..year 2013:
the 500k db bug, while the nodes had a 1mb consensus in place. in 2013
majority of nodes had double capacity consensus rules but as soon as miners made a block over 500kb. a bug appeared in the way nodes stores a block locally.

if there was a bug then miners just go back to making under 500kb blocks where there was no issues and a fix is found before trying again to go above 500kb again.
hmm.. wait.
2013 there were over 7000 nodes. and bitcoin still exists. blocks are bigger than 500kb

now replace 1mb for 2mb, replace 500kb for 1mb and replace 2013 for 2017
is that what you are talking about?

your doomsday about exceeding a Xbyte block revealing a bug has played out 3 years ago and bitcoin still exists.
care to take off your blockstream utopian hat off and put on a sceptical hat and deal with the if/when segwit has a bug.
and describe how that will play out.
or will you brush it aside and uphold sgwit as a masterpiece of bug free utopia.

if you wish to be open minded and be sceptical.
atleast take into account that segwit (though socially required rather than technically required) will also require 95% acceptance before things change.

i truly hope you put the skeptical hat on and plough out a segwit doomsday. especially emphasising segwit would be at 95% acceptance.

Well classical liberalism is definitely not leftist , its center.

-Abolition of slavery
-End abuse of minorities
&
-Low government regulation
-Low taxes


It pretty much sits in the center, but the word liberal has been hijacked, so the word libertarian is what it is called today.

Ok, but would do you think they would call it?

You are talking bullshit again, i specifically said in that post that I wasnt talking about the consensus but about the technical problems given by uppgrading at the same time.

Read my post again, i am not going to repeat myself.

Oh really? So what's the true intention behind the suggestion?
Let me guess, destroying someone's property to retain market value of your asset (with possible appreciation being fortunate side effect) is somehow completely different than doing the same but stating 'appreciation' as a main goal?

You just got carried away here a little bit didn't you?

in 1-2 days??
are you saying that anything not blockstream:
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% running nodes, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period, then
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% mining pools, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period.

but instead all nodes do nothing and then magically jump to 95% and activate in 1-2days.?
funnily enough no proposal has ever proposed such a silly brainfarts.

instead realise it takes time to get to 95%.. which strangely you agree is right for core.. but strangely think is not right for anything not core.
not even sure where u are getting this 1-2 days from. but im guessing its out of the doomsday hat

You are truly a master of spinning words franky.

I am not talking about the consensus, but about uppgrading the clients simultaneously, in say 1-2 days. This would expose the network to an enourmous risk, since any hacker who has a zero day bug for that client, will be able to disrupt or destroy the network entirely.

So a gradual change from 0.12 to 0.13.1 is preferable in weeks or months ,so that everyone can test it.


I would call that centrist , not leftist.

If somebody supports gay marriage that doesnt mean that they support 80% taxes too....

you had me at the first sentance and then you lost yourself with the second one.
right now BU, XT, classic, and all the others are RUNNING NOW
people can review the code now.

secondly to activate a rule upgrade, over 95% would be already running just to get the activation going. WHICH TAKES TIME

its not about everyone suddenly jumps onboard after activation. instead they would already be onboard before activation and the activation is simply then using the rules that are already available to the network