Topic: Combating Oligarchy - page 3. (Read 1873 times)

Not really, no. Please provide me with sufficient data and evidence that supports the claims that people do in fact know "what's best for the rest of us". Should the janitor in my office do the engineer's job now, because how possibly could the Engineer know what is 'best' (debatable)?

So your solution is support for a contentious HF in addition to joining in on the Sybil-attack (on Amazon)?

Or, Classic supporters use DDoS among their own people and point fingers at Core? Quite simple to manipulate the people actually.

I am not at all saying DDoS attacks are justified, but I can understand why they feel that it is necessary to do it. Some people see as a threat to the community. They do not want Classic to succeed and their only method to appose this, is to launch a counter attack. For every action, there is a equal and opposite re-action. The law see this as industrial sabotage and it is defined as a crime. The fight for the power to keep control, has gone to the streets. These people are risking jail time to protect their own interest or possibly even the interest of the whole community.     

i get what you are trying to say. but take it from another angle. is 2 people running 20 nodes each beneficial to the network. knowing those 2 people only physically need to touch and use 1 of the nodes each.

or is having 20 people using 1 node each (same node count) but where 20 people are in 20 different locations and each using only 1 implementation for real purposes.

i myself could easily (financially and resource ready) run 5000 nodes. but i choose to only run one node, i would prefer to get 5000 people to run a node (if they needed to run one for its true purpose) instead.

simply because you running 10 nodes on the same datacenter adds nothing to the decentralization premiss.

dont get me wrong i do understand your motives are honourable, but from a technical side. its not really as helpful as getting 10 people to run full nodes

A Sybil Attack is defined (at least by Wikipedia) as, "an attack wherein a reputation system is subverted by forging identities in peer-to-peer networks."  I don't believe my choice to run ten Classic nodes comes close to qualifying under this definition.  Also, how many people have foregone running a classic node because they feared a DDoS attack or experienced one?  I would argue that I am trying to deskew the stats -- and let's not forget that more nodes benefits the network as well.
 

I agree with some of what you are saying here, but I don't want to digress into a technical discussion on the relative merits of the different approaches to solve the congestion problem.  It should be sufficient to acknowledge that a solution is needed, and that certain special interest groups are going out of their way to prevent the simplest and most obvious solution from being implemented.  I wouldn't mind if they were using discourse to push their agenda, but they are using cyber-terrorism to force it on the community and that should never be tolerated.

two things to note.
1, advocating for methods of sybil attacking is not a good way to go(one person running more then one node for no other purpose then to skew stats)
it doesnt matter if its a core fanboy or a classic fanboy. both parties should not try sybil attacks. or ddos, or transaction spam attacks

2. though classic is one implementation. there is alot of background drama involved. so what could be done better is to get the programmers of bitcoinj, btcd, and the other main implementations to go for 2mb aswell. and find a way to get blockstream to come to their senses to have 2mb aswell.

things like debunking the 12month grace hard fork contention argument, by using luke jr's proposal of a different hard fork(difficulty drop) that he feels can happily become active in 3 months after code release.(if luke thinks 3months is acceptable. then no reason to go for 12, if luke wants hiscode in april then 2mb can be in april too)

things like debunking validation issues by highlighting that libsecp256k1 offers 5x validation speeds. making total of 10,000 signatures validate in april 2016, in the same time it takes 2000 signatures to validate in january 2016. thus allowing for more then a small bit of growth

things like debunking the hard drive storage bloat, with stats that 1mb has maxmimum yearly 100% filled blocks rate of 52.5gb. 2mb=105gb 4mb=210mb
so a 2tb hard drive at $100 can store 40 years of 1mb, 20 years of 2mb and 10 years of 4mb(2mb+segwit)

things like debunking user upload speeds causing relay delays. by stating that millions of people can happily play an online game, while in a voiceoverIP group chat. while livestreaming the game to youtube or twitch, all of which are upload activities. 750kbps= ~93 kByte/s = ~56mb every 10 minutes

I think the DDoS attack is for the most part backfiring, as most node operators are feeling defiant and spinning up more nodes in response.

Let them waste their money. It will make no difference.

You are right though, this is an extremely dirty tactic and it is clearly to the benefit of Core. People should be asking a lot of questions as to who is doing this and why. Keep in mind they have spent *hundreds of thousands* on this attack so far. If they keep this up, this attack will end up costing them a million $ or more. Someone is really desperate.

You are changing the subject.

The issue is whether or not the Bitcoin community is going to stand by and allow a small, currently anonymous organization or special interest group to subvert its interests.

If so, then say goodbye to Bitcoin and hello to JPMCoin, or GovCoin, or SIGCoin.  Whoever has the money to pay for the most DDoS attacks and the most shills will either get their way, or they will attack the network so that no one else can use it.

Allowing the current attack against Bitcoin Classic to continue unanswered is setting a precedent.  If it is allowed to stand, it will be harmful to the interests of most people in the Bitcoin community by paving the way special interests.  Don't let special interest groups control Bitcoin in the same manner they control so many other pillars of our civilization.

There will always be both congestion and attacks against nodes: it's an open network where you pay for what you use. Classic doesn't solve either problem, because those problems will never be solved using the Satoshi design. (i.e. open network, pay for what you use)

I think the DDoS is one of the most ridiculous way to express opinions. Let there be a fair fight! I think the better one will win the race.

I have installed the bitcoin classic node and will try to run it as long/frequenct as possible, hope this will help- and yes I have port 8333 forwarded.

A bitcoin oligarchy is better than a bitcoin democracy.

A democracy is a 51% attack, 51% of people vote for redistributing your coins to them, and you`d have no say in the matter.

So lets avoid that disaster.

Sadly it's human nature. To an extent Bitcoin is an attempt to fight it but it's just as vulnerable to those pesky humans as everything else. Whether the humans involved are bright enough to try and account for this, well, the jury's out.

It seems that certain elements in the Bitcoin community seem to think they know what's best for the rest of us.  Not unlike their cousins in political office, or sitting on the boards of large companies, they posses a degree of arrogance and narcissism that predispose them to this belief.  That would be fine if it stopped there, but when it extends to:

• DDoS attacks against people running Bitcoin nodes that conflict with their personal visions of the future
• Ad hominem attacks on respected members of the community that don't agree with them
• A refusal by other members with the same preference to disavow the above actions and shun the guilty parties

Then I find it past time to call for action.

I'm interested in hearing others thoughts on the subject, but here are a few ideas to discuss:

• Start a bounty to reward anyone who comes forward with information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible for the DDoS attacks.
• Encourage more people to run Bitcoin Classic nodes as a way of protesting the unethical actions taken by those parties opposed to it
• Facilitate the creation of more Bitcoin Classic nodes by providing howto guides as well as prepackaged distributions ready-for-deployment on popular cloud service providers

I am prepared to fund ten Bitcoin Classic nodes myself and am presently working out the details so I can get started.

Regardless of your thoughts on block size, it is important to realize the precedent that will be set if the actions of the Bitcoin oligarchs are allowed to stand.  It will send a very clear message to the world that a small group of people will be able to take control of Bitcoin's destiny and steer it in whatever direction suits them.

If and when the DDoS attacks stop and we see concrete progress being made in the development community towards a solution to the current congestion, however temporary in nature, then it may be time to end this effort.