Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 88. (Read 378993 times)

From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference. They are essentially the same thing, never before has an open source software project become so political. This why it is should no longer be acceptable that a single person or a small group of people have the final say over the development of Bitcoin. This power needs to be distributed and divided among multiple implementations, which most likely will also be dictatorial in their internal decision making processes. However when people do have several implementations to choose from, the freedom of choice is increased and this does solve the problem of centralized development.

I recommend cryptography, computer science and economics.

It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

Every single Bitcoin users has the choice to run whatever code he desires. Several miners and peers run different implementations & versions of the protocol­.

If they wish so they can adjust and re-compile whatever setting they desire, as long as it respects the existing consensus.

So really, when you speak of "top-down governance" and Core totalitarianism I have no fucking idea what is it you are talking about. Especially seeing as the Bitcoin Core repo is an open-source project.

Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth.

Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition.

Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance.

I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here?

Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust. 

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

I am defending the original Bitcoin, your concept of top down governance is not how Bitcoin works technically, you might be able to enforce it through a culture of believe, but that does not change the ultimate reality which is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side.

It's not just Core saying no to BIP101 or XT, it's the miners too, and the vast majority of the nodes. The message couldn't be clearer, are you suggesting it's fairer to have a sufficiently aggressive minority overrule that?

You are essentially saying that people should not have the free choice. Someone does have to choose however, you can not escape this fact, under the scenario you describe it is obvious that the Core developers would choose for us. They would effectively control and decide on the future of Bitcoin under this model. I strongly disagree with this approach. I do think that this might be at the crux of our disagreement. It most certainly is an ideological disagreement, even if you disagree with that and claim truth and scientific validity it does not change that for me this is an ideological issue. In political thinking the question is often asked of whom decides, in the case of Bitcoin I think that the people or what is referred to as the economic majority should decide.

In order to achieve what you are suggesting you would have to either radically change the protocol and take the freedom out of the protocol, which i think is actually impossible to do since people can still choose to run it or not, unless you combine Bitcoin with the power and force of the state. The other way to achieve what you think would be the ideal governance model of Bitcoin would be to convince enough people that they do not have a choice or that they should defer their decision to the experts or authority instead. Neither of these scenarios seems particularly appealing to me so I definitely favor a bottom up approach where ultimately it is the users/peers that decide on the future of Bitcoin collectively in a distributed and decentralized manner, even if that means that we might sometimes not be able to agree with each other which would most likely lead to inevitable splits in the future.

This is the price of freedom, I can see how having a totalitarian approach can be appealing, no politics just centralized control by the technocrats, no splits just complete consensus and everyone has to agree with the center all of the time and for the rest of time. If enough people believed this it could work, but I am a freedom loving person so I would not want to be part of such a totalitarian construct.

that's what I'm thinking.

IP address probably links to one of these filipino bot farms