Topic: Can someone tell me what this means? - page 2. (Read 445 times)

the data (blockdata) is decentralised over hundreds of thousands of nodes..
the rules, are bug checked and fixed and changed by only a small group of devs..  and they hate decentralised people outside their group entering their group and having an independent mindset

It depends all on the author's understanding of the actual concept. Saying it's decentralized and not enough doesn't make sense.
Either it is, or not. I would say, Bitcoin is decentralized and does not have to be perfect as it's unique like every human on this planet.
About system design qualities, I don't see any attack on Bitcoin as of now and the other chains have been exploited worth millions in the past years.

well actually. scam artist CSW did sue the core devs and some of the main website owners that host bitcoin stuff like the white paper

it didnt affect the bitcoin protocol and the real wide community care about.. but it did affect and scare the small clubhouse that certain people are loyal too.

I think it is simply rephrasing the first statement. in the first statement " Bitcoin is decentralized enough to never be broken or sued" is clear enough to state that bitcoin is beyond the centralized monetary system and in the second statement "but does not have the perfect decentralization that would degrade system design qualities.” which tells us that despite Bitcoin not having a central authority the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is strong enough to resist been broken or sued

you dont. there is like 12 main "buddies" in your little fan club(cough community)..
there are thousands of topics from thousands of people wanting bitcoin scaling. and only a few dozen topics of your fan agenda of offramping people to altnets as the solution. where its the same dozen people defending altnets as the "solution"

your buddies are the fans of core devs. but that does not make you the majority of the community of all users.
you are the majority of the small group of core dev loyalist fanclub.. thats the difference

heck even your mindset that you think you 12 are the majority is more admission and proof of the hierarchy you love so much. thinking your better then the rest due to ass-kissory of a small central group that think they are the authority.

so yea. it was a laugh seeing you prove my point

your "community" consists of core devs and their loyal fan club
you denie that users and random decentralised people are the real "community"

now go do a topic count on how many people ask and talk about BITCOIN scaling and how many are involved in your altnet solution of keeping bitcoin slim and stagnant, to offramp people away from bitcoin ant into your favoured altnets


learn the size of the actual wider bitcoin community and not just your small version of the community you think is the community

oh and one last funny

i can find more examples. but you get the point
screw it i know your going to be belligerent and dare me.. so heres just another of many posts that reveal how you dont want anyone apart from core devs making the decisions, and prefer everyone else to make a new altcoin/altnet


YOU are a altnet admirer and majority user.
i use the bitcoin network and want the bitcoin network to grow.. but you think you are the bitcoiner and i am the competing altnet admirer..

try to learn the roles are the opposite to what you think.. YOU are the small "community" that want to aspire to grow altnets, by stifling bitcoin design and functionality to promote your altnet

..
i can name your "community majority" off by heart
i know you cant name the ACTUAL bitcoin community majority of thousands/millions of users that want bitcoin network scaling off by heart (i know your tempted to waste hours trawling through thousands of topics to copy and paste name just to pretend you have good memory, pretending you didnt trawl them all and instead just remembered them).. but by posting so many names you are proving my point..  the point is the real community is wider than your fan club

Just a parenthesis; me and "my buddies" form the overwhelming majority.

This is not what I think, nor what I said.

But, you decide to run their software. Just having the upgraded client is pointless if you don't use it. You, therefore, matter. You action has a consequence. If the developers make a change you disapprove of, they have no power whatsoever. In the same way the miners don't get to dictate you what are the protocol rules, just because they have a certain percentage of the hashrate.

The people you hate outnumber you. Stop thinking of how you can make us think different and realize that you are the problem.

blackhatcoiner.. YOU and your buddies are the idiots that think if someone has an idea they should fork and start a new network and see who joins.

you forget the emphasis that the core devs DECIDE what code gets ACK'd into core
only certain dev cores get to ack and commit the code to a RC

you forget the emphasis that the core devs DECIDE that any other large full node client that is not core should get REKT and treated as an alt/competitor and be forked

a user cant just add its own idea into cores github and have it turned into a RC, where it gets released as a new 0.23.x variant where the community then download or not download depending if they want the feature or not.

there is no multiple versions of with different idea's where people choose which version to run which then get activated once a majority of version 0.23.Y is being used.

there actually is a hierarchy of control of how things get voted in as accepted to core. and these moderators of the levels are well known. and only one version is released at a time and that versions just gets blindly downloaded as an update rather than a choice of options....

the community do not get to decide different features side by side. its now more or a single brand that just gets updated. and instead of a choice. its more of a waiting game or a forced to update that decides WHEN something activates. as there is no alternative to just say no to

do you even remember why they called it CORE. to be the central repository of protocol rules.

the core devs do not like competing full nodes. they even admit that they feel just having a competing full node puts extra work on THEM as it means them as arbitrators of the protocol then are forced to have to review other brands code.

they think they are the managers/authority of the protocol.

so heres a plan..
stop social drama protecting human influencers that you admire. and instead think about the code and protocol the random real community of users are reliant on.
think about the and stop trying to protect the devs.
devs should come and go. so you should not be caring about trying to keep devs in power by your loyalism to humans more than the loyalist to the protocol that needs to grow and evolve

oh and maybe do some research on history of all the REKT campaigns and the evolution of CORE from bitcoin-qt, and just do that research without the social group loyalist hat on

...
and while your at it.. do realise the devs cries about how bitcoin scaling cant work.. is their agenda.. they lie..
for instance ethereum is half the age but the blocksize is more than double but they are not crying.. why?. because we are not in 1999 where people are on dialup and where hard drives are small
core devs play the lies of it being 1999 where scaling bitcoin cant work becasue hardware cant cope.. but reality of real world examples show that not to be the case..

and i am not talking just about blocksize.. im talking about many other features core devs' decline.. like a fee formulae.(yes it can be implemented after all their own crappy math cludge of treating legacy vs segwit fee's differently, which has proven to work) so it is possible to put a fee formula that actually benefits users. but their politics of their agenda doesnt want that.

other things like limiting sig-ops per tx and such so that people cant bloat up block with just a few tx's so that more people can add more tx's per block.. that got declined because its against the core agenda

This is definitely not how it is. The Bitcoin Core developers are no close to dictators, which is what you make it sound like. If someone has an idea, they're free and welcomed to propose it. If there's consensus found on the idea, the developers will start implementing it.

And a developer has no power over me. If they want to enforce their idea by implementing it themselves without further discussion, I'll simply deny to run their software. Simple as that.

You're the only person who sees "outsiders" and "alts". I only see people who've understood there's no further future for scaling on-chain, and try to accomplish it off-chain. One advantage of SegWit was to increase transaction capacity per block, but it was never intended to completely solve scaling.

If you have an idea on how to solve scaling, feel free to say it. But, to catch up with you, changing the block size makes no difference to scaling.

Or put another way, some people have ideas which are incompatible.  They believe their ideas are good, but are unable to find support within the community to implement these ideas.  This is often because their ideas are, in fact, misguided.  Developers have a responsibility to ensure changes don't adversely impact the security and stability of the network.  You could keep taking that rejection personally, playing the victim and whining about it at every opportunity (and you probably will).  Or, you could take a pause.  Seriously reevaluate your ideas and look at them objectively.  Consider whether these ideas would be deemed acceptable by a majority of network participants.  Is your proposal something that everyone would want, or just something you want?  Would your ideas (intentionally or unintentionally) coerce others to carry an additional burden of resource cost in order to make your idea work?  Does the concept stand up to to game-theory, or could it potentially be exploited?  Does it have any potential repercussions that could in any way undermine, weaken or threaten the protocol?  

Chances are, you just haven't thought it through to conclusion.  You can't blame devs for that (except for the part where you keep doing exactly that...).

Bitcoin is decentralized but a group of developers takes the decision about the changes in the code. These changes are called BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals), and there are 3 types of BIPs:

Standards Track BIPs - Changes to the network protocol, block or transaction validation, or anything affecting interoperability.
Informational BIPs - Design issues, general guidelines. This type of BIP is NOT for proposing new features and do not represent community consensus
Process BIPs - Describes or proposes a change in the process. Similar to Standards BIPs but apply outside the Bitcoin protocol.

And this is why its decentralization can't degrade or destroy the design qualities as the book mention.

If you want to learn more about this, I leave the wiki link here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

Yeah I agree with frankly that it could be a grievance to the scalability problems, the fairly slow network, or the lack of features (such as smart contract resemblance).

(smart contracts being a feature may not be something I directly agree with being implemented without its own chain - sandbox - but the author might)

there is no company that owns bitcoin...
.. but there is a central hub of developers(core) that have a hierarchy of code control of the protocol.. and they do not like random(decentralised) people having idea's that differ from theirs. they treat anyone that has idea's to grow bitcoin that do not align to their plan as outsiders and to treat all attempts to add bitcoin scaling as a threat/challenge to the hub group of devs. and to try to force the outsider into making an alt rather than integrate the scaling into bitcoin

I was reading the book blockchain wars and ran across this sentence. “ Bitcoin is decentralized enough to never be broken or sued but does not have the perfect decentralization that would degrade system design qualities.” I read it three times and don’t understand the second part of the sentence. Can someone explain it in a different way? I think that there is God, and then Bitcoin. But this passage might make me wrong. Lol