Topic: Devs + a few big mining "guilds" control all of BTC protocol, correct? (Read 1113 times)

FALSE

If you were honestly interested in an answer, you would have read any of the thousand other threads that ask exactly this same question.

I'm so sorry you were not able to understand my post.
You are obviously such are truly nice person, I need to try harder to please you. 

I'm sorry, I had mistaken you for someone that was trying to learn and understand.  Had I realized you were just a troll, I would have simply clicked "ignore" and moved on.  I won't make that mistake with you again.  Good luck with your misguided paranoia.


I wasn't.  I was genuinely attempting to assist someone that I thought mis-understood the open source and consensus system of bitcoin.  I certainly know better now.


Nothing I said was meant to be smart ass.  Was simply pointing out what you misunderstood and attempting to point you in the right direction.


It says that you are either a troll, or you simply prefer your beliefs over education and understanding.  If you took some time to learn about the bitcoin consensus system you'd realize that the things I said were not wrong.


It's not so much a matter of "can't handle it" as much as it is a preference to spend my time assisting people who actually want to learn and understand, and not wasting it on trolls that are spouting nonsense.

Grats on being the first person added to my ignore list.

Stop spreading FUD. There won't really be any individual miners in the future IS WHAT I AM SAYING. It will be Cex.io and whoever else is the second most powerful and they can dictate mostly anything they want. It is their hardware and these "individuals" you speak of will be people owning "shares" of the hardware that the mining "guilds" let you have a part in. They can control what changes they accept, last time I checked on Cex.io you cannot reject or even see incoming changes from the devs. I hate morons.

FUD spreader.

Devs + a few big mining "guilds" control all of BTC protocol, correct?
No.
The individual miners give the pools the power, and the miners can take that power back any time.

That assumes that most people see what is happening though. At a certain point average people will be the majority and won't understand much about that. So I feel like this could only happen after more mass adoption.

Nodes will not transmit/relay the blocks that miners mine if the blocks break some of the rules.

So what exactly controls if the fork is accepted though? Are we talking about nodes or miners? If it is miners then the mining "guilds" could collude and do it right? if it is Nodes I imagine you would need more people getting together to do this.

My worry is that through time, the richest people would be able to buy nodes/control more nodes, and have the most miners. If that is what it takes to control if they could. Currently we all believe we are not being controlled, but where there is profit there is corruption and that happens a lot in this BTC world.

I don't get why you are trolling me. Other people above me didn't say smart ass remarks to me. Maybe you need to take a break from the forums. Most of what you said to me is wrong too, so I am not sure what that says.

Since you want to say things like I appear to not understand current banking system or how Bitcoin works. Why don't you shove a giant pineapple up your asshole and fuck off. I don't need another retard(elitist) talking down to me when they are guessing at what I know. Anyone who talks down to me gets it right back, especially if they are not helpful at all... If you can't handle it then ignore me.

That depends on what you mean by "nothing bad happen", but generally most people who lost bitcoins at MtGox would agree that justice has not yet been served.


Nothing at all.  Lots of developers have already done that.  We generally call them "altcoins".


No, they cannot.  They can get together and create their own altcoin.  Then they have to convince everyone to switch to their altcoin.


Incorrect.  There could be infinite of whatever they wanted to call their altcoin.


Then you clearly don't understand how the bitcoin protocol works, and why distributed consensus is such a significant development.


That really depends on how you define BTC, but generally, no.


Me. And everyone else that is running a full node or mining.


Because it is open source, if anyone tried to change the protocol, everyone else would learn about it.  They could all then refuse to upgrade to the new software.


This is quite unlikely, and you haven't given any reason to believe it would happen.


Then exchange smaller fractions of a bitcoin.


You appear not to understand how the current banking system works or how bitcoins works. Instead, you've invented some imaginary way that you think it might work, and then managed to become afraid of your own imagination.

EDIT: On re-reading what I wrote, I see that the sentence above was uncalled for and a bit judgmental. I apologize to everyone for inappropriate condescension.


Then perhaps some additional education is in order.

Very much what franky1 said.  What you are talking about OP, is just yet another fork and it sounds like just yet another quickly worthless fork. Even if all those miners decided to take a loss and mine the least worthy fork forever.
 

dev's would have to release a new update for their changes to occur. if we see the changes mess around too much, we will all downgrade to the old version and ignore the fork that they have created through their upgrade.

leaving them to play with a fork that the majority of people dont want to touch. and we then carry on using the old clients until someone better and more honest makes a client update that fits the rules that we want.

they can offer the bitcoin updates.. but it is us that chooses to accept them or stick with crrent version. at worse there may be a 48 hour period while people realise the problem and decide to go back to the old way. a protocol change is not permanent unless its a positive feature we all want

similar to many people's thoughts about windows.. alot of people have stuck with windows 7 because it works better and has been tested alot, windows 8 is still buggy and lost alot of good features that old windows versions had. eventually microsoft will make service packs to make windows 8 perfect for users. but until then alot of people will stick with windows 7

Nothing bad has happened to him yet... I'm pretty sure there are going to be major legal repercussions from what he did.


If only 50.0000001% of miners used the change there would be 2 blockchains running, they would just be conflicting with each other.  Even if the devs did strong arm some pools, I'm sure the miners would just switch to a different pool.


Yes, it could be changed... but it won't happen, because it would pretty much kill the point of Bitcoin and I don't think the miners would support it.


NOPE! (see previous answers)

I think it's not that big problem. It does not matter if someone will try to force some unwanted ideas because if merchant already accepts bitcoin then its easy to add other cryptos. People will just switch to other crypto or forks and the price will simply drop to 0. That's why I don't think that any wise person would destroy their own work.

Nothing ever stops the people in power from screwing the little guy. The same would apply to Bitcoin.

I was thinking of a scenario. A lil long.

Ok, so Mark Karpeles had nothing bad happen to him for goxxing everyone, right.


So if nothing happened to him, what stops the few BTC devs from working with the top 1 or 2 mining "guilds" and forcing a change onto the miners? All you need is 50.000000001% of all miners to accept a fork is what it sounds like right?

BTC was founded to get away from having centralized control. If you ask me, this is more centralized control than anything I have ever seen. Like 10 people can get together and do whatever they want with 21 million BTC? If the devs went to someone who had control over 50.0000000001% of all mining power, and they convinced them to accept any changes, then there could be infinite BTC correct?

I am asking this seriously and I am not trolling. Can the number of actual total possible BTC get increased or decreased? What is stopping anything from having an increased block reward if it is all open source right?


See, its things like this that make me worry about what BTC will turn into. I really think the majority of mining should be controlled by the smaller people instead of being these big centralized mining "guilds/clans/organizations".

But a few years from now the only major players will hold an oligopoly over BTC and everything will be too expensive to buy your own for the smaller people. So BTC will turn into something more centralized than the current banking system in the U.S.... In the U.S. anyone can make a bank and yeah its dominated by like the top 20 banks or so? But there is a lot of moving/working parts to make it happen. A big change can easily be ignored by the majority, but in BTCs case a big change just needs someone like Cex.io to say Yes and the change gets pushed through.


That is how I understand what BTC is going to turn into. Hopefully there is something in the works to prevent this from happening. But that is why I am basically going to be a bear for now on BTC.


I appreciate any feedback on this.