Topic: Blockstream is nothing more than a $70M blockchain takeover attempt (Read 2855 times)

Hmm, yes maybe it can just happen. because basically the bitcoin is a digital currency that cannot be undertaken by any Government and making it could be misused by core devs. Of the problem that will sometimes show up people who are not responsible for what they do, although we can still enjoy the results of the bitcoin for no one destroy the image of the bitcoin. Use of advantages in the bitcoin for your life and for investment, because it is so beneficial rather than having to think about the problem that it is not yet clear
 

Because unlike your way of thinking, some people really want to contribute and does not need a lot of money to make them feel motivated to do so. It is that kind of selflessness that made us develop and evolve in how we are today. Ironically we have seem to have been going the other direction. Selflessness has become a rare trait these days. Does that mean we have stopped developing?

you forgot .. then bypass real consensus and make it so the pools vote.. then blame the pools for having the vote and start waving a victim card because all the pools didnt instantly kiss ass

adam back, gmaxwell and corallo having a combined 70,000 coins in 2014.. um no

probably more like 7000 coins

There seems to be a lot of fear about Chinese intentions. A lot of them are quite intelligent and well educated, and they like bitcoin because of the freedom it gives them from their controlling government. That said, they will look after their own interests.

But perhaps we should fear corporate capitalism too. They have their own tactics for looking after their own interests, and they are quite familiar:

Create a crisis by creating scarcity on the blockchain, resulting in escalating fees.
Solve the crisis by providing a private solution, the lightning network.

One may consider it as an attempt to privatise bitcoin. Others views may vary.

Carlton, why did you delete my posts from your thread asking Greg what core plans to do about BTU? You don't think core needs a plan or some PR work and a political strategy to deal with issues now and in the future?

Quick straw poll


Who thinks that the Blockstream based developers owned more than $70 million dollars worth of Bitcoin, before they even got the funding?

+1 (me)

I really don't know what to tell you about China.  Bitcoin is designed to be fairly tamper free,
but if you're worried about a possible 51% attack, I wish I had an answer. 
I'm sure some very smart people are working on ideas.

Friend, there are A LOT of problems with Bitcoin ATM. All I am saying is that BTU is not the answer and I wish people would stop pushing it as the savior of Bitcoin. If Core/Blockstream/SegWit is unacceptable and BTU is unacceptable then we as a community need to look else where for answers. Truthfully, I can see where people would have doubts about Blockstream (conflict of interest much?), however, to close your eyes to the possibility of the same or worse with the Chinese just boggles my mind.

I just want to state for the record, I would be saying the same thing if it was the Swedish instead of the Chinese with centralization or any other country, except the US because we are awesome 

I would like to add something, that illustrates even further the "futility" of the distributedness of the non-mining node network.  You can compare the block chain to a kind of very, very heavy digital signature, not of a single transaction, but of a whole crypto currency.  Now, if you can verify for yourself the validity of a "digital signature", the only thing that matters to you is that you got it.  From whom you got it doesn't matter because the security is in the cryptography, and not in the nature of the one providing you with the signature.  The cryptography proves that the signature is valid.  The validity of a digital signature doesn't increase by "other independent entities telling you that they too, agree with the signature's validity, or not".  If it depended on peers validating, it would mean that the cryptography of the signature is broken.   Normally, the verification of a signature doesn't depend on others: you can verify that all by yourself.

So, if you get to a block chain, which is a kind of big digital signature of the whole of what the crypto currency represents, and you verify it for yourself, and you agree with it, that is all that matters.  Even if you got it from a "centralized server".  You do not need peers to acknowledge that it was valid: if they acknowledge it, you STILL want to obtain a copy to verify it for yourself, and if they don't acknowledge it, they won't even transmit it to you.  So, your peers validating it or not, doesn't contribute anything to YOU finding it valid or not.

The only point of possible contention with a "centralized block chain server" is that that server might hold back the "best block chain", to serve you a "valid, but less long" chain.  However, in as much as you see that chain growing (for yourself), you know that who-ever is doing that, is spending a lot of hash rate on a chain of which HE knows that it is not the longest and strongest, because the cryptographic proof of work can be verified by YOU.  No miner in his right mind is going to WASTE all that proof of work on a chain of which he knows HIMSELF that it is not the longest.  So there is actually no danger of being "tricked into a miner making shorter chains to cheat on you".
The miner's "web site" has all the reasons to provide you with the most up to date, longest chain he's REALLY working on.  There is no danger to be tricked there.

In fact, this has been, in my opinion, the biggest mistake in most crypto currencies: that the consensus protocol enforcement is rewarded, be it proof of work or proof of stake or something else.  This induces centralization by the nature of economies of scale and eagerness for rewards.

The elites and world political power we do everything within their power to see that they manipulation crypto currencies. They tools is to bring dishonest group for core devs and make sure those devs will follow their dictate. Of we still want a decentralized system then honest people should be allowed to do the job.

Well, that only depends on what the owner of that node wants.  

1) it is "just a node": doesn't matter, but it will eventually find other nodes on the network that have valid (according to his protocol) block chains.... or not, in which case it will simply come to a halt.

2) it is a user, that is to say, someone who has coins and want to send transactions against value, or the counter party: who wants to receive coins, and provide value for it (goods, services, IOU, dollars.... whatever).  Of course that user will have to CHOOSE what coin (what block chain) he wants to use (in agreement with his counter party of course).  And so, that user has to pick one of the miners making the "right" block chain.  Miners have all interest advertising themselves to the users that want to value the chain they are building.  So normally, both having all interest to get in contact, I don't see the problem them finding themselves.  If it is a big user, say, an exchange, it is the small miner (mining pool) that will find the big user advertising himself ; if it is a small user, and a big mining pool, the mining pool will advertise himself.

3) miners have also all interest in connecting to users, but especially to like-minded miners.   So miners join automatically the strong network of like-minded miner nodes.  They have to, if they want to use their hash rate usefully and not always be late and make orphaned blocks.

Users have no difficulty finding facebook's servers, don't they ?  Users have no difficulty finding coinbase's servers, don't they ?  So I don't see how they could miss one another, if they are both eager on doing business together.

Miners find one another.  Users find one another.  Because they will advertise themselves.  This is not really "centralisation", in the sense that what is decentralized in a crypto currency, are those entities providing for the consensus.  In a proof-of-work system, those are the miners.  And nobody else.  But they are sensitive to the users as they provide market valuation, and pay the miners through their market valuation.

Bill gates actually does an incredible amount of charity work but that's besides the point.

Plenty of developers work on GNU and Linux because they love it. Some of them are paid to, but even the ones who are paid to often do a considerable amount of contribution beyond what they are paid to.

Already happening.


But if those 4000 nodes do not agree with the new protocol, how much of an impediment is it for a node that updates to the new protocol to find the exchanges and mining pools?

Pools are miners and users.
Exchanges are (big) users: they transact a lot of coins.
Users, well, are users.
And users that set up nodes, well, are users.

All these entities are USERS, that is to say, are interested in transacting tokens against value.

You might think that exchanges are something special.  They aren't really, they are very big users.  They receive coins, and they give you web-site IOU with which you can play on their web site.  They also sell web-site IOU for (fiat) money.  That's their ultimate goal.  And they send you coins to destroy web-site IOU.  In other words, they transact a lot with their customers: essentially they transact coins ultimately for fiat money.

Exchanges are amongst the most important users, because (unfortunately) not much ELSE of value is exchanged for crypto coins.  A little bit of services and goods, but not much.  Far most (real) crypto currency transactions is to and from exchanges.  Coinmarketcap also includes the transactions between exchange-web-site-IOU which are promised to be backed by the actual crypto currency, but these transactions are not the ones on block chains we are talking about: these transactions could take place totally independent of even an existing block chain.  Hundreds of alt coins that essentially only exist on Poloniex could continue to be traded as Poloniex IOU even if their block chains stopped entirely.  It would be like Play Station game assets, centralized on Poloniex ; not a crypto currency as such.

So, all the entities you talk about are users.  Users vote with their money, because they establish the value of the crypto token.


This "infrastructure" is not really needed, and has strictly ZERO decision power, that's what I'm trying to tell you here, and this is why the network of non-mining nodes is absolutely UNIMPORTANT, and doesn't mean zilch as "the controlling community" ; "the guardians of the consensus" or whatever things are told about it.  This infrastructure is just a proxy structure that helps (only helps) the miner network communicate with the users: miners make a block chain for the user (and the MINERS decide upon the protocol, by making the blocks, and by choosing on which other block to build), and by accepting transactions submitted by users.

The only thing that a node network can do, is make this propagation happen in a P2P way.  But as long as there is a direct connection possible between the miner network and the user, that P2P network is not even needed.  That's what I'm getting at.  And if the network is not needed, it has zero decision power. 

The USER has of course the possibility of choosing between SEVERAL different versions of a block chain *if there are miners making them*.  If MINERS decide upon a hard fork, that is, their network splits into two networks, building two different chains, then the users (including big exchanges) can decide to only accept one ; or both.  And they will then determine the respective market caps.  Users can also decide to quit the network, and to plummet the value of the coin, even if only one chain is out there. 

This is why miners are sensitive to the user value estimation.


Miners have power, because they make the block chain or the block chains, so they (and they alone) decide upon the protocol or protocols used to make the block chain (s).

Users have power because they give value to the crypto tokens on the chain(s). 

So, miners have power over users because the miners determine the protocol ; users have power over miners because they determine the value of the tokens the miners obtain (in other words, the users pay the miners).

And there is nothing else in a crypto currency.

As I said, suppose that 3 big exchanges, and 7 mining pools (having a significant part of hash rate) agree upon a protocol.  That's all that is needed.  The exchanges list the coin (and their customers play with it), ; the mining pools make the block chain and include the transactions.

Whether 4000 nodes agree or not, they don't give a shit.

Idk, why would a top dev volunteer? That's like bill Gates volunteering to build computers for the poor. It makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for freedom but at the same time I don't understand anything technical about bitcoins.

Hmm, I wouldn't think that the core devs will do something wrong. For if they do it all, then it will have an impact on growth and the price of the bitcoin. If they do so then it happened was the fall in the price of bitcoin and they will be a fugitive, as well as be scolding everyone of all time. So, why and the things that aren't necessarily thinking occurs ..?? , Core devs get a salary and also offer better so that it has the possibility of a very small
 

I believe it will be Roger Ver and his cohorts. They will also sing to the crowd of how freedom and independence should be maintained in the development of Bitcoin. I believe they will also ask the community for donations and form a group of people to decide how the funds should be spent. In the end it will be no different from the Bitcoin foundation. But the difference will be the new core developers will be sub par compared to the ones now.

Ok I understand what you are saying now.  

You are saying:  China controls mining, BU gives miners more power, therefore, BU gives China more power.
I'll concede that is a logical argument, although that is not the same argument you made earlier
by implying BU actually causes or contributes to the centralization of mining:


But the main problem with your new argument is that
I don't really think BU gives miners that much new power.

Here's a few points to consider -- some rhetorical questions
which I'm providing to demonstrate
I'm neither a moron nor a paid shill:
 
1. What power does BU give miners except
emergent consensus over the blocksize? None.

2. If BU is adopted, does this really allow miners
to "control the development direction of Bitcoin"?
(if so, how?)  Or does it instead simply remove a centralized
contentious variable from the system?

3. Hasn't the Bitcoin plan since the original whitepaper
always been to have mining nodes vote on the rules with
their processing power? (See my Satoshi quote earlier in the thread)

4. Doesn't a 51% majority of hashing power already have
defacto control of the blockchain, with or without BU?

5. Don't developers, not miners have control of the direction
of development?

6. Even if you somehow take away 'development power' from China,
that's not going to help the other aspects of centralization (mining
and mining equipment) one iota, right?