Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 45. (Read 378991 times)

RBF had 100% consensus within the dev list(acks all the way down)... Are you suggesting developers petition non developers for specific code changes where the general public can make decisions upon complex topics they barely understand and than demand the developers(volunteers) carry out their will?
Is there any open source projects that work this way you know of?

There is no hypocrisy there. I still disagree with how BIP65 was implemented. I also still disagree with RBF, since it weakens zero confirmation in favor of strengthening layer two payment channels. They did this without the appropriate time and consensus that I think should have been appropriate for such a contentious change, considering their previous position on contentious issues I also find their actions hypocritical.

Furthermore I can disagree with all of these changes, even find them disgusting and hypocritical. This does not change however that the Core implantation does still have the freedom and the right to implement whatever they want, that does not imply however that their actions are not wrong or that I can not disagree with them.

I am disgusted by your hypocrisy

We must have different definitions of totalitarian. I don't find an open source project repository that allows for pull requests from anyone , Complete transparency in code, advocates for competing implementations and the right for people to ultimately choose, encourages participation, criticism and testing to be totalitarian. I don't understand how you square those polar opposites.

To be fair the closest I have seen to be "totalitarian" like behavior is some censorship here and on reddit. Spotty censorship that appears to have lessoned, but that wasn't coming from any devs.

I suppose we can be clearer by keep repeating to people Bitcoin is open source protocol where people can come and go as they please and select their implementation they prefer over and over again ad naseum. Would that suffice, or what do you expect?

No that was actually long understood. Only the "fork nao" braindead noise stiffled rational and serious discution about it.

Yet, i'd still argue that corporations have to adapt to bitcoin and not the other way around.

I will get around to re-posting the conversation I had with gmaxwell here, I can show you exactly where this fundemental disagreement lies. I do actually agree with you though. Core can implement whatever they want to implement regardless of what the economic majority wants, however it is important that the economic majority knows that they do have this choice, and that they do not need to adhere to more totalitarian philosophies in regards to Core. This is a question of our political culture within the Bitcoin community, which I still think is going through a awakening and self realization. Which is why I also keep quoting RIP Rowan about how we can only lose our freedom if we become convinced to give up it. The same is true for pre-existing political theory, power always comes from the people, ultimatly it is the people that choose to give up their freedom, and once surrendered it is not as easy to regain.

To answer your question brg444, I will continue to support the Bitcoin network and respect the proof of work consensus. Bitcoin unlimited and Bitcoin XT still operate on the same blockchain as Core does, without a mining majority BIP101 will also not fork the network, we are still both part of the same economy. Therefore in the absence of BIP101 forking the network through proof of work consensus, I still de facto support any blocksize increase Core implements.

Agreed at this time, but I was referring to months ago where a couple devs like Peter Todd suggesting keeping 1MB . The video is still on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNL1a7aKThs

There definitely has been a slight shift in the discussion, partly promoted by the fact that the LN will need larger blocks to appropriately scale.

I think there's a word missing here 

The core developers absolutely do believe the market should decide upon the blocksize limit and direction of the codebase. I have never heard the argument from one of them that their should only be one implementation and people should be restricted to only using their repisitory.
Whatever the people want they can get, as its entirely up to them what code they use.

What I see happening here is some are bitter that developers aren't beholden and forced by the will of the people to work on code they philosophically disagree with. This isn't how open source projects work. You cannot force volunteers to design projects the way you prefer. If you disagree you can fork and encourage others to join you. The developers aren't our personal slaves that we can make demands from ... they are volunteers making very important contributions towards our ecosystem.


Most of the developers are in favor of a diversity of repositories and implementations. This is very misleading.

timing and relevance?

By only a couple you mean not a single one at all-- if you are speaking in terms of eventualities. It's always been a question of costs and impacts.

So when do you fork off to your favorite unlimited implementation again?

So now that we have a scaling solution that potentially increases the block size down the road do you support it VS?

P.S. Spare us your Peter R induced brainwashing. Thanks

While I hate to admit it, Zarathustra is right. He did predict that some kind of blocksize increase would be accepted and that the 1MB hard line wouldn't hold. Instead of giving him a hard time, we should just give him and the others who've fought for so many months to increase the block capacity some credit. In my case, I'm willing to say it: Congratulations, Zarathustra. Well done.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13128607

I think there is presently a fundamental disagreement within the Bitcoin community, which is related predominantly around questions of governance. I believe like many others do that consensus is an emergent property which is best reflected through proof of work which acts as a proxy for the economic majority. This is in strong contrast to the opposing view that Bitcoin should be governed top down by Core or that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics and eternal unchangeable principles. These two conceptions of Bitcoin governance are at odds with each other. It has become very clear to me especially after the conversations I had with gmaxwell on this thread that Core ascribes to the latter conception of Bitcoin governance, which I am in strong disagreement with. This has increased the need for alternative implementations especially as Core is presently attempting to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin in a way which I disagree with.

Part of this difference of perspective can be ascribed to peoples intellectual backgrounds. I can understand that for an engineer or scientist having a system governed by pure mathematics and science would be appealing. However I do not believe that is the case, Bitcoin is governed by the economic majority. People with economics background tend to understand and be more comfortable with the idea of allowing the free market to determine such things. An economist would also understand the inherent disadvantageous of central economic planning, which in effect is what Core is attempting to do now, at least in regards to their position on the blocksize related to governance. Essentially I believe that ideally the blocksize limit should not be used to determine the actual average blocksize, blocksize should ideally emerge from factors of supply and demand instead.

Yes, it's the market, stupid! The market forced the Politbüro to 'propose' to raise the limit.

The larger problem is that some entitled little socialists who've never done anything relevant feel they deserve to be consulted on every decisions and that their "voice" matter "because democracy" when Bitcoin has always worked under the settings of a meritocracy for very obvious reasons.

I can see that now , thank you. I think we hold some responsibility in breeding this vitriol and hostility as well. There were many developers that were busy coding and testing instead of playing politics. Communication problems arose due to the inefficiencies over discussing complex ideas on mailing lists and forums which were exacerbated by the stakes involved which are much higher than most open source projects.

In the future we need better communicators to bridge the ideas and work from developers as they are working at levels way above our heads and don't necessarily know how to gauge the audience or speak without jargon. We also need more conferences and get together between developers where they have a chance to build solidarity in a less stressful environment. Hopefully we can build from these mistakes and grow together.

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

That's why your are reading there all the time.