Topic: Bitcoin's definition of 'consensus' has ruined Bitcoin (Read 722 times)

First of all, Bitcoin Core already has a regular release scheme. Your answer implies some kind of urgency to have "ideas" being implemented as fast as possible. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree that permanent additions of new features is recommendable at all. In my view, the most important thing is, that Bitcoin's core functionality as being free decentralized cash is maintained and secured against malicious actors.

Too many optional features could actually endanger the security of the Bitcoin network via creating new attack vectors and demanding more resources that could be detrimental for decentralization.

Besides that, I consider Bitcoin development significantly more complex than working on certain features of the Ubuntu OS. For example, SegWit involves concepts that have never been practically implemented and tested before. Therefore it is perfectly understandable that such changes need a lot of time, because since Bitcoin is financial software, new features require thorough testing.

It's also good to have ample discussion, before new features are added to put these new features under scrutiny.

ya.ya.yo!

Price doesn't "affirm" anything, nor should you ever be mistaken that it does for anything in life ever.  A gold toilet that flushes with 40 year old scotch every time you take a shit is probably X1000000 more expensive than a regular toilet, but does that make the gold toilet better at achieving what you need to be achieved? Which is to shit/piss in said bowl and remove it from your house effectively? Gold toilet might technically be able to get the job done... but hopefully you get my point...

While I do agree with you on the aspect that Ethereum is a complete joke in a sense to "solving this huge problem" people have to create apps/dapps or whatever the fuck Ethereum does...

What I don't agree with you that the Core team is doing anything that's close to "great" in terms of execution. While some devs might have a good idea that contradicts with the other, they fail to do the one thing that matters is to actually agree on something and then doing it.  This is the big thing to me that aggravates me the most with the Bitcoin governance structure, and why I tend to like the way Monero's devs have laid things out; like so:

"Hey guys, we have this idea. Once we develop it, we would like to ask you to join us in testing it.  We are going to go ahead and give you guys a heads up that we are going to hard fork 'X' and 'Y' day every year for a while until we are satisfied with the code and go from there. Period"

Now you can blow me off as some shill, but this is a legit problem that needs to be looked at with Bitcoin and the "governance" structure.  Bitcoin will probably always be the gold standard in cryptocurrencies; but if it can't keep up with the 'times' (especially in a digital world of constant technological progression) then it's just going to be left behind if it can't keep up.

*quick edit: Take Ubuntu for example... "We are going to continue to improve the OS and every 6 months you can expect an update" ... I just think that's the best policy in terms of keeping things like software such as Ubuntu or Bitcoin up to date so to speak.

Everyone wants to have their own way be the way everyone else has to take, and while this does mean that the "concensus" of the blockstream is phony and not worth paying attention to, Ethereum isn't a better choice. They just won't hae issues because they have a limited amount of people working on it, and it isn't much of a community effort for its development.

Also Micorsoft investing in Ethereum? Time to skip on that piece of shit. Microsoft is now interested in getting their own established currency and they'll use it to data mine their users to all hell. Anyone can see that happening.

oh yeah, and ETH is very good example of decentralization right? lol...
and theres no competition between bitcoin and ethereum... stop saying like eth would overrule bitcoin. Ethereum is a completely different thing used in another use case.

The problem with Bitcoin is just power tussle, some people want to hijack the project, Bitcoin will succeed, SW implementation will change the game for Bitcoin if successful.

I don't know....I think the two technologies are totally different and very hard to compare.  Their differences are much greater than their similarities.  The Ethereum network is a totally different beast which encourages network development (Look at this stuff on the Ethereum chain: http://dapps.ethercasts.com/).  Bitcoin provides an excellent means to transfer value but it's blockchain is basically just a ledger of transactions.  The Ethereum blockchain processes information, transfers value, and builds upon itself to process smart contracts....They are totally different, so I don't see one being a champion over the other.  But, I agree that the governance surrounding bitcoin seems a little heavy handed....but, much of that can be attributed to the community itself because community participation is a bit more passive now that control has shifted toward the big pools operators.

Without being as affirmative as the OP, I have to admit ETH has proven to be surprisingly resilient. After the huge failure of the DAO, and the hard fork, I find it incredible that ETH has kept its value. If it has survived this, it's not going to disappear tomorrow.

And it's quite true that bitcoin's governance is a joke. Block size issue (I mean scalability) is still far from solved.

Ethereum's exploits since it has started = 7   VS Bitcoin's exploits since it has started 7 years ago = 2 .... Now which of these developer

teams will you trust with your money? ... Fuck, there are no choice, but Bitcoin for the future. After Ethereum has been hyped to hell and

people have had their profits, it will go to zero soon. They should have concentrated on their strong points, which would have been Smart

contracts, not competing with Bitcoin as a currency. 

Greg Maxwell's idea of consensus is totally corrupted.  There is no decentralization in bitcoin.  If Greg Maxwell says 'do it this way', then that is how it is done. 

While I can agree that "Bitcoin governance is a joke". It seems that bitcoin developers are not on point with all changes, consensus, increasing BTC network capabilities.
But I don't agree on everything else. Microsoft can be blinded by ETH as everyone else who fell for their marketing mumbo jumbo but ETH will never be the boss.

Why ethereum like centralized crypto should be considered as the competitor for bitcoin. With ethereum corporation doing lots of nasty stuffs to survive as well as in many ocassions they have dumped their holding to get some funds for their staff payment and tour. Now after microsoft like corp as well as banks heavily investing in ethereum making them more centralized one.

People will never gonna love ethereum in the same way like they do to bitcoin. Bitcoin will always remain as boss in field of cryptocurrency payment service.

Total nonsense. Ethereum is an over-hyped and over-complicated solution for something that is not even a real problem. Ethereum is one of the least decentralized and most corporatist altcoin out there - it even included winding-back of valid transactions, which makes it totally untrustworthy from my point of view.

The more useful features of Ethereum will be integrated by third-party services (such as rootstock) into Bitcoin and Ethereum will face a slow but inevitable demise.

Greg Maxwell and the whole Core team have done a great job in developing Bitcoin and finding an intelligent solution to scaling without compromising decentralization. I know there are a lot of pure fiat crackheads that want to make a quick $$$-return no matter how. These people are entirely ignorant of the core propositions of Bitcoin's value: Network-decentralization, security, and privacy. These are the aspects that are of outmost importance for Bitcoin's longterm success.

ya.ya.yo!

ethereum is not the new boss. it has many many flaws

but core still think bitcoin needs a boss for bitcoin to be a boss.

bitcoin does not need a boss. anyone thinking it does, needs to retry learning the purpose of bitcoin.
bitcoin should not have one group running the show. but several groups. letting people have open choice of who they like.
where these several groups have the current rules and then let the community choose the new rules, based on the rules not the groups.

not because one group releases rule 123 and another group releases rule 321.. but all groups release 123 and 321 and the community decide the rule without having to worry or favour or be biased towards one group or other.

this then makes its about the rules not the favour of groups

true consensus can then be reached based purely on the bitcoin rules.
if no rule gets majority based on the rule itself. then it doesnt activate. again its about the rules not the group

again this evaporates the fake social consensus and brings the decision and consent back to code consensus

These guys are running away with the game.  http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/09/25/microsoft-boosts-blockchain-efforts-with-ethereum-based-project-bletchley/  Microsoft is investing heavily on building tools and systems for Ethereum.  While Greg Maxwell and team bonehead at Blockstream have decided their consensus is the consensus.  

100% certain now.  Ethereum is the new boss.  Bitcoin governance is a joke.