Topic: Decentralisation is harder than you think - page 2. (Read 740 times)

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

EG
block 600000 pool a: TX123
block 600001 pool b

imagine malicious pool c came in with a rhashed/re-org'ed the chain to 600002 height that ignored TX123
block 600000 pool c
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

pool A would just make a block later to re-add tx123 ..
block 600003 pool a: TX123

thus pool C wont simply make a chain that ignore tx123 and thats it job done, relax and have coffee.. stop at block 600002
pool C will have to continue to hash away and ensure no other pool gets a chance to re-add tx123 later.
thus its a continual cost for C to keep up this game purely to try to keep tx123 from entering the blockchain later

hense why the 'losing bet' needs to be a significant amount of value for it to be worthy for pool C to continue the pressure to prevent tx123 ongoing.

which is where people say the incentive to mess around with a chain purely to ignore a couple transactions is not big enough, as it takes much longer than just the time of the initial rehash/re-org. the malicious pool has to keep it up for a long time and maybe do many re-orgs if tx123 did appear in competing pools blocks

It's not off topic because you would have needed access to significant mining power to reliably perform such an attack. Without hash rate, you couldn't guarantee winning bets will be confirmed and losing bets dropped. Any non-miner could have losing bets confirmed all day. A mining pool can withhold certain transactions (losing bets) from the blockchain while confirming others (winning bets). This creates expected value for the colluders.


The point is that miners with significant hash rates have incentives to act dishonestly. The worse mining concentration gets, the less Bitcoin's mining incentives work. Attacking 1-confirmation transactions would significantly increase the costs, but it doesn't destroy the double spend incentive. There just needs to be enough value worth stealing and enough hash rate at the attacker's disposal.

the reason i say you deny it is because you intentionally flip flop. one minute you admit it and you admire cores actions, the next you deny it even happened. which is where i keep telling you to do your research and then just pick one of your narratives and stick to it.. as it has become boring to repeatedly have to reply to either your flip or your flop. because it just seems your more interested in causing the flip flops for social distraction

..
anyways
devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.

if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul
(EG core should have walked off with tail between legs with their 35% approval, and then come back with an improved compromised version that would have got approval WITHOUT needing to do mandated throw offs)
..
the issue is:
devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)
devs throw other options off the network before an option even activates
devs throw people off the network that dont opt for the version the devs prefer.

also the link you provided PROVES that devs were throwing off segwit2x nodes off the network before segwit2x even got a chance to grow a vote to even have the option of an activation.
and the UASF proved that users got thrown off the network BEFORE segwit1x got activation

...
after an activation. fine. if there is too much orphan drama or ddos spamming bad blocks then fine ban nodes. AFTER ACTIVATION. but throwing people off BEFORE activation purely to get a fake approval vote.. that is not consensus

and that is the thing i have been saying all along.. but wee all know you prefer CORE to remove opposers to fake approval because you love core dominance/dictatorship

P.S
segwit2x nodes would have accepted segwit1x rules so throwing 2x nodes off the network was ZERO percent about security. and 100% about core only wanting 1x activated)
..

thus CORE were in 100% control of what got activated.
yep throwing people off the network BEFORE activation. is not protecting the network because at the point of throwing off the network the feature was not even active to of caused issues. the throwing off was purely to get rid of opposers, to then fake increase approval of a feature only core wanted.

no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete

..
again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found

try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes

I fully encourage people to decide for themselves.  If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes.  People should read it.  Here it is again.  

Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it?  Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be?  Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.  

doomad your boring and just flip flopping

time to move on from reading your core defender speaches.
the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

Indeed.  New ideas and innovations can come from anywhere, precisely because it's decentralised.  All the people who can't even tolerate the existence of LN would find their time far better spent coming up with something new that other users might find agreeable.  Although it seems like many of the most persistent whiners probably lack the technical skills to do so.  So they have to put all their efforts into making up new FUD instead.  

But if anyone actually goes ahead and implements ideas in code which are not compatible with what other users are enforcing in their own implementations, they shouldn't be shocked to find themselves moving forward without the other Bitcoin users on board.  Bitcoin users are free to do their own thing and leave you to do whatever crazy stuff you might want to do.  Consensus doesn't mean you get to singlehandedly hold up the progress other people are making just because you don't agree with the direction they are clearly moving in and you somehow think your incompatible ideas are better.  Hence forks.

---

I'll be sure to hold a small celebration on 1st Aug 2019 to commemorate the anniversary of your ongoing butthurt.  It's about as close to caring as I'm ever likely to get.



Miners decide miner policy.  Why should Core force their ideas about fees onto miners?  It makes more sense to let the miners decide for themselves.  You'd know this if you researched it, like how you keep telling everyone else to do.  Try taking your own advice.  

Also, one could take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in arguing that it's bad for devs to make all the decisions and then simultaneously arguing that devs should decide fee policy for the miners.  Seriously, which is it?  If you're going to whine about how unfair it supposedly is, could you at least figure out what it is you actually want first?

I can say that decentralization of cryptocurrencies has been hurt by big mining pools
Over 50% of Ethereum supply is controlled by two big mining pools from China
Ripple is pure premine
From all of that crypto blue chips bitcoin is most decentralized
I have been reading that Amazon can release his blockchain management tool
If that will happen there is a danger that Amazon can take control on any blockchain  except
bitcoin
Miners has to agree on any update or  blockchain fork users have not so much to say in fact
POS is easy to say but POS is creating inflation very fast

Decentralization is a spectrum... We could debate this all day.

I am not sure 100% decentralization is needed in all projects. I do see the 100% decentralization of Bitcoin being a huge asset.

Its kind of like the word organic. The definition to some people means natural process some people thing NOTHING man made can touch the process.

BIPS that CORE moderate <- emphasis

the issue is that core removed fee priority mechanisms to force in a fee war where people are now paying more onchain. this is the ploy to advertise and direct people into being pushed to use LN because its too expensive to stay independant on bitcoins network

imagine the only transport route were cars. core are setting up toll roads and then offering a cheap bus/train network. thus making it real hard for people to want to remain having their own car, and then coming out with the adverts about how buses and trains are so much better and faster and cheaper so everyone should ditch ownership of cars and use commercial buses/trains instead

doomad.. DO YOUR RESEARCH

august 1st was a contentious fork to disconnect nodes that disagreed with wanting segwitx1..
(to falesly improve the % approval of segwit by only showing approval nodes/pools)

then they disconnected the segwit2x nodes to further fake the approval% of segwit1x

there was no true consensus of segwit1x because CORE threw people off the network to fake an agreement count


consensus is and should not be about throwing people off the network to fake an agreement
consensus should be about no one gets thrown off before activation. if there is no majority agreement then a feature simple does not activate

core got the activation not by majority agreement. but by throwing people off the network to get a faked agreement by counting less voters by ignoring those objecting

the nodes that were seen as not objecting were mainly nodes that were told were 'compatible' . EG were told even their abstaining would be treated as agreeing

any way. you seem to want core dominance and central control where core always win by deceptive consensus bypass techniques.

Something I don't understand. Why people are only focusing on LN like if it will be the last innovation to Bitcoin and people won't have the choice to use it. IF it's a "cheque environment" then like IRL you're not forced to use it and it didn't mean we won't get a better alternative then.
That's what BIPs are for.

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it.  It was an open, publicly available discussion.  It's not some sort of sordid coverup.  You call it a "ploy" because you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.  I call it a pragmatic and sensible solution which kept the network secure.  I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.  More crucially, without the aid of a time machine, you can't change what has already transpired, so your options are either to remain butthurt for the rest of your sad life, or get the hell over it and move on.



There was agreement.  Those securing the chain agreed.  No one cares if you don't agree.  Your numbers are insignificant.  Find more people who agree with you and then you will understand consensus.



No one can "learn" what you think you know unless they start from the same fundamentally flawed premise you did.  Anyone who actually understands Bitcoin will recognise that it doesn't work how you like to pretend it does and that's why no one ever comes to your defence when I'm verbally kerb-stomping you like this.  Start perceiving reality in the way everyone else already can and then you'll be able to figure out why your posts are so woefully ineffective at convincing people your fairy tales are true.

The big challenge is really make Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general be adopted by the people massively. The problem is that we are still to see this massive shift and nobody can be sure when that can happen...knowing how changing is the marketplace and how many other entities are also fighting (and yes they have the money to orchestrate their campaign if they want to) the incursion of Bitcoin and similar technology. How we then can induce people all over the world to get into Bitcoin. In 2017 and even into 2018, there was this feeling that things were going into this direction but slowly things started to get derailed. Let's hope that soon this dream can start be materializing otherwise Bitcoin will just be one of the many choices people can get into and if there can be no clear and big reasons why they should then the probability is they will not.

which is why LN has flaws. and is to be treated as an IOU
its like writing a cheque that wont clear.
you cant then say you no longer owe someone something if the cheque doesnt clear, simply by handing over uncleared cheques

without using a blockchain to confirm transactions at the time of payment...your in a area of zero confirmationed/uncleared cheques environment.
even the LN devs admit to that issue.
LN is a zero confirm IOU environment and no way to guarantee a confirmation later

hense why i prefer to want ONCHAIN decentralisated innovation while certain people only want to ruin bitcoins network in a greedy method to trying to push for offchain unimmutible unconfirmed, flawed networks. emphasis on greed

that is completely off topic because it doesn't even have anything to any mining pool or having hashrate, etc. you don't even have to be a miner to be able to perform something like that. it is just the starter of that topic who is making it bigger issue than it is and linking it to GHASH somehow. otherwise it is another proof of how 0-confirmation transactions are not safe and can easily be double spent.

core only had 35% vote. so they should have stopped and walked away with tail between its legs under their segwitx1

but instead they done a contentious fork to push out th opposition to then fake a majority.. and im using YOUR words so you cant later deny it happenend like you usually do with your flip flops of social distraction

permissionless network means you want users to have no say. no permission to stop devs.
the DEVS wrote the code of the mandate they even wrote the compatibility so that it bypasses true consensus.
it was not a user decision.
you kep saying it yourself that you hate the idea of devs needing user permission. you keep saying you love the idea for devs to just write code and activate it without permission
atleast wake up to your own flip flops and decide if you want to stick with a flip narrative or a flop narrative and stick with one

anyways thats you wanting a dictatorship

LEARN consensus
learn byzantine generals issue

learn how bitcoin became a innovation which core has now eroded away and made into their centralist network with only 'distribution'.. not decentralisation

after months and months. you keep on denying the same debate
that the main dev team instigated a ploy to push proper full nodes that were not following core off the network

you have become very boring now.
as for the second part of your post. you then flip flop to admit it. thus undoing your hard work of denying such.
so just stick with a flop or a flop.

gmax admitted he likes the idea of pushing opposers off the network
luke JR admits to being involved in it. there is no point defending them as if they had no part when they happily admit it.

atleast do your research on the falsality your trying to defend. also dont pretend that non-dev users got a choice in the mandate.. as it was all 'compatible' meaning no opt-in required.
as for the opt-out option. it was not a opt out to prevent activation. it was a opt out of the network.
learn the word 'mandated'


you need to learn what consensus is and why it made bitcoin what it was.
true consensus is not about 'forks' sorting it out. consensus is about if there is no agreement. nothing happens. no activation

learn how it solved the byzantine generals issue and how the core devs have literally broken down the consensus mechanism by bypassing it. and are now trying to say blockchains dont work
if you want to defend devs that dont care about bitcoin or the blockchain technology then go play around on normal database forums

but if you care about bitcoin and blockchains will you please do your research and drop your broken record. as your defending nothing by holding onto your echo chamber

any way.
you have become someone that does not care about bitcoin and you just want a social drama distraction.
so go watch some eastenders and be content with that social drama

The client you're running didn't write itself either.  Stop pretending there is only one dev team.  Granted, there aren't many popular dev teams, but since you clearly want to falsely portray the situation as some sort of dictatorship, then I can see why you wouldn't freely admit that other clients are right there for the choosing and it's just that most people don't approve of their ideas.  Because if you admitted that, then your "argument" would be decimated.  

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.  That's up to them, though.  No one is going to agree with hamstringing one dev team to allow others to play catch-up, which, as I recall, was an idea you're rather fond of.  We have a level playing field.  Proposing to make it unlevel in order to assist weaker participants is not how we do things here.  It's survival of the fittest.  Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.  Try having better ideas and more convincing arguments in future if you want people to create and run code supporting those ideas.  



I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network.  Clearly they did.  There were media articles about it.  The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that.  I will defend their actions.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.  I even stated at the time I had no complaints about it.  Everything I said then, I will stand by now:


If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.  People can run whatever code they like.  You're still in denial about the fact that users made their choice and the only thing you can do about it is run the client you want to run (and whine incessantly for the rest of forever, apparently).  As I said at the time, "just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on".



I want permissionless freedom and I already have it.  More diversity would be nice, but not at the expense of permissionless freedom.  You want to change the glorious paradise we currently enjoy into some sort of "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything" nonsense and you can literally climb up your own backside because Bitcoin will never work like that.  Ever.  People code what they want.  Users run what they want.  That is decentralisation.  No one is in a position of authority to stop someone from doing what they want.  Just know that if other people don't like what you're doing, you might end up doing it by yourself, because no one is forced to follow along.  You can go your own way by yourself if you want.  If others agree, they can follow you.  Everyone has a choice.  That's the best part about Bitcoin.  That's what I'm preserving.  Unity is not always the best solution.  Trying to stick together whilst simultaneously trying to move in opposite directions is not possible.  It's like arguing that human beings somehow function better when they suffer from multiple personality disorder.  

Your ideas, no matter how good you might think they are, would absolutely weaken both decentralisation and permissionless freedom.  If you ever managed to implement your ridiculous ideas in Bitcoin, developers would simply leave this network and continue developing on another network where they'd be straight back to being perfectly free to code what they want.  And that's the network which would thrive.  You keep talking about "stagnating development", but that's exactly what would happen if we had to have some stupid vote about every future change.  I mean, just look at Brexit.  How much simpler would it be if those who want it and those who don't want it simply ended up on different networks and each went their own separate way?  But instead, it's a total impasse.  No one can agree on anything.  Nothing is moving forward.  Everyone is sick of it.  That's what Bitcoin would look like if we did things your way.

And... saving the best for last:



Yes, some devs made a decision.  And then some users and some miners agreed with it.  So it happened.
  
It wouldn't have happened if some devs made a decision and then no one agreed with it.

You have no argument to counter this.  You will never have an argument to counter this.  

People have to agree for a change in Bitcoin to occur (and if people can't agree, a fork tends to sort it out).  If people agree, change happens.  You can't refute that.  No one can.  Large numbers of people have to run the code in order for that code to have any effect.  That's how it works.  If you don't like how it works, too bad.  The numbers aren't on your side.  If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the numbers are on your side (and pigs fly), then you can implement whatever dumb crap you like.  Until then, keep screaming "social drama", "research", "bypass", "mandate", "meander", etc in a bunch of threads where it isn't even on-topic.  It's pretty much all you're good for.  Derailing threads with mind-numbingly idiotic catchphrases and then trying to blame others when they point out the myriad reasons why you're demonstrably wrong.  Maybe consider a change in tactics?  It's clearly not having the desired effect.

Who told Decentralization is easy specially in a world that everything even how we think, do transactions , what we watch or hear and any other essential thing we do controlled some how by some sort of organization or government so if we are to implement a new invention like blockchain technology that allow us to do everything without any barrier at the early stage the denial is not a surprise so decentralization in the beginning is hard but at the end when world starts to benefit from it everything will start to change accordingly

devs did make the decisions.

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.
secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

so how about you get on with your life and do some research to actually learn whats really happening so you can stop flip flopping in and out of certain things. and then i wont have to yawn and laugh at your posts so much.

(i now expect yet another boring rhetoric from him or his buddies side tracking the topic to harp on about some other social drama.. so sorry folks for his boring interuptions)