what would satoshi do?
Must he do anything at all? I think he should remain anonymous
Topic: Bitcoin & Its Decision Makers (Read 609 times)
Must he do anything at all? I think he should remain anonymous
what would satoshi do?
Although Satoshi Nakamoto show on the public, he can not do anything because the bitcoin has changed by comunity and developers, will be wise and good Satoshi Nakamoto is stay anonymous and the future of bitcoin depend on the comunity and developers right now without Satoshi Nakamoto. what would satoshi do?
Must he do anything at all? I think he should remain anonymous
actually the whole consensus thing it's not so different than the parliamentary in euro or some country
a bunch of guys decide for a new law for example, but they they need the consensu of another bunch of guys
would be better if the consensus in the parliamentary was based on a direct democracy, where the poeple decide and not a restrict elite of asshole
a bunch of guys decide for a new law for example, but they they need the consensu of another bunch of guys
would be better if the consensus in the parliamentary was based on a direct democracy, where the poeple decide and not a restrict elite of asshole
This is an interesting topic. Much like there are protests in the real world, if the community decided to stop transacting bitcoin the miners couldn't make any money and the developers work would temporarily be useless.
Is this a viable course of action if we don't like the squabbling over the transaction capacity debates, BU and all?
Is this a viable course of action if we don't like the squabbling over the transaction capacity debates, BU and all?
i think its best people simply learn real consensus and the symbiotic relationship between
nodes
pools
services.
nodes set the rules,
pools collate data(transactions) to create blocks in a formation that can be accepted by nodes,
users/services see the tx/block details using nodes(directly or indirectly).
doing things like bypassing node consensus is a backdoor exploit, which some think is useful but is actually a open hole which can be exploited.
(plans to us this exploit to make it even easier in future to slide new things in unnoticed later(trojan possibility risks))
so nodes have the most important role. they set the acceptable rules pools need to follow and allows services and users to access and view data.
its important that nodes remain diverse, decentralised to not have a single point of weakness.
by having a dozen+ node implementation(brands) means if one had a bug it doesnt cause big issues to the entire network
(BU 2017 assert bug(negligible network drama))
by having one node implementation(brand) means if it had a bug it does cause big issues to the entire network because it affects so many.
(core v0.8 2013 Berkeley/leveldb bug(large network drama))
not only does diverse nodes help reduce bugs affecting everyone. but it also makes it less easy for corporations to change the rules without consent.
(blockstream cannot just activate segwit tomorrow because although they deny it. it does require community consensus, even if they did go soft)
pools will not produce blocks that are not acceptable to node consensus, else it would get rejected in about 3 seconds. and they just wasted their time
(dynamic block with 1.000250 bytes reject 3 seconds)
devs should have the mindset of offering a option. and letting the combined node/user/pool/services to choose it or not.
no consensus bypassing,
no mandatory activations without consensus.
no threats to kill pools or change things to less secure mechanisms
obviously if there were true bugs(network danger risk level, rather than feature level), then users would update their nodes to the implementation that has fixed the bug.
nodes
pools
services.
nodes set the rules,
pools collate data(transactions) to create blocks in a formation that can be accepted by nodes,
users/services see the tx/block details using nodes(directly or indirectly).
doing things like bypassing node consensus is a backdoor exploit, which some think is useful but is actually a open hole which can be exploited.
(plans to us this exploit to make it even easier in future to slide new things in unnoticed later(trojan possibility risks))
so nodes have the most important role. they set the acceptable rules pools need to follow and allows services and users to access and view data.
its important that nodes remain diverse, decentralised to not have a single point of weakness.
by having a dozen+ node implementation(brands) means if one had a bug it doesnt cause big issues to the entire network
(BU 2017 assert bug(negligible network drama))
by having one node implementation(brand) means if it had a bug it does cause big issues to the entire network because it affects so many.
(core v0.8 2013 Berkeley/leveldb bug(large network drama))
not only does diverse nodes help reduce bugs affecting everyone. but it also makes it less easy for corporations to change the rules without consent.
(blockstream cannot just activate segwit tomorrow because although they deny it. it does require community consensus, even if they did go soft)
pools will not produce blocks that are not acceptable to node consensus, else it would get rejected in about 3 seconds. and they just wasted their time
(dynamic block with 1.000250 bytes reject 3 seconds)
devs should have the mindset of offering a option. and letting the combined node/user/pool/services to choose it or not.
no consensus bypassing,
no mandatory activations without consensus.
no threats to kill pools or change things to less secure mechanisms
obviously if there were true bugs(network danger risk level, rather than feature level), then users would update their nodes to the implementation that has fixed the bug.
This is a quote from Bitcoin.com: "It is true Bitcoin relies on a set of developers to make decisions in terms of protocol changes (albeit dependent on approval by miners and node operators), but in no way do they possess the same authority as the sociopaths who manipulate the central banks in the United States do. Consensus among the developers and community determine the growth, evolution, and direction of the protocol."
While I believe that it is fact that Bitcoin is really different and can even represent the voice and sentiment of the global community when it comes to finances and yes even on politics, I am sure right now we are witnessing some weaknesses and cracks which exposed the fact that we are all humans.
Do you think its about time that as a community there can be an established and globally accepted principles guiding Bitcoin and its many stakeholders? Or is it part of being decentralized to have none at all?
While I believe that it is fact that Bitcoin is really different and can even represent the voice and sentiment of the global community when it comes to finances and yes even on politics, I am sure right now we are witnessing some weaknesses and cracks which exposed the fact that we are all humans.
Do you think its about time that as a community there can be an established and globally accepted principles guiding Bitcoin and its many stakeholders? Or is it part of being decentralized to have none at all?
Jump to: