Topic: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? - page 2. (Read 689 times)

Tragic.  


Let's approach this from another perspective:  

Imagine in some alternate reality things had gone differently and users had somehow decided en-masse that EC was a great idea.  Then imagine they all started using a client which not only enforced EC as the current ruleset, but contained code to fork core clients off the network.  And imagine there's also sufficient hashrate for that chain to be secure because the miners are operating in accordance to that new ruleset.  I'd be defending that outcome too.  Despite the fact there would clearly be people who didn't like it, I'd defend that because the thing that made it happen is the users running that client.  It doesn't matter what code devs make.  The outcome depends on the users.  



By.  The.  Users.

You have to be running a client before you can block the connection to a different client.  The users had plenty of choices they could have made.  XT, BU, Classic, older Core clients that didn't contain code to disconnect certain nodes from the network.  But they didn't want to make those choices, they wanted to drop the nodes proposing a ruleset they didn't agree with.  So they did.  Like it or not, people generally agreed with the arguments presented by those who said "REKT".  You lost.  Present a more compelling argument next time.



Who's denying it happened?  I know what happened, I was right there watching it.  When rational people look at these events, they can see what happened.  But when a conspiracy theorist crackpot like you looks at these events, you come up with some fantastical fiction worthy of a hollywood movie (or possibly just a story scrawled on a padded wall with your own excrement when you wriggle out of your straightjacket).  You're insane.

bitcoin should be decentralised. but that requires users having choice. without fair open choice, its not decentralisation. its distribution
and dont cry that the choice of stay on network or F**K off is a fair choice. that is not fair choice thats the tyranny of apartheid, the tyranny of nazi, the tyranny of any corrupt unethical system

the implementations were following core
the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017
are you now denying the whole august 1st event even occurred?

now do you think random users got to decide. no. they could only follow because there is no alternative level playingfleid full node that would have survived the roadmap plan of REKTness that occurred with things like UASF and NYA bait and switch

do you even understand the word coercion
USAF: follow cores roadmap or node/blocks get ignored
NYA: follow cores roadmap or your transactions wont be seen on the network by list xx of merchants
swx2: follow cores roadmap and we (will fake) also giving 2mb after
anyone else that just didnt change to a core opposer node. just got their node defaulted to being outdated and not a full validation node thus not be able to object to the roadmap. they just became blind to it (dev buzzwords, bridged, downstream nodes)

core only had 35% desire for segwit before the coercion and code tricks.
even now the utility of segwit is low. yea even the then big miners that advocated for cores roadmap are still afraid to use segwit for thier own funds when they get block rewards
consensus can and was bypassed because people were blinding following one group. so that group got to control what consensus should be. they even went as far as lowering the threshold and doing the apartheid tactics of threatening to kick nodes/blocks out the network if they didnt obide by the rule of the roadmap

its literally wrote in the blockchain. you can actually see the version numbers in the blocks and the how things change
you can see it in forum posts, twitter where certain faces promote the tricks to by pass it
you can read it in he code of the bips and in the code for the supposed 'alternatives'

for there actually to be a fair consensus mechanism there needs to actually be diversity/fair choice

even the devs admit their actions. yea they cal it buzzwords.. some call it a unilateral upgrade (i laugh as thats a buzzword of centralism) some call it bilateral split some call it bypassing consensus some call it a controversial fork some call it by many names but by using mandated dates and threats that if you dont follow cores roadmap ur f**ked is saying core controlled the network as all roads led to cor because everyone FOLLOWED core..

users dont control consensus because they just download core because they would get REKT if they didnt.

the stats are there the data is their there. but you can scream it never happened all you like


anyway i know your trying too hard to turn  decentralisation debate into a "someones attacking doomad" social distraction. but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen.. the stats exist the data exists and even the devs talk about it using their own chosen buzzwords.. i am just simplifying it all that we need to get back to a level playing field of multiple choice of nodes and not just blindly follow cores roadmap
im not sure what your trying to defend but it aint a dcentralised network. you seem too core positive and obsessed with what core should do rather than what a open network should do

You can't be more wrong on that. We firstly don't know if Satoshi thinks we're heading towards his preferred direction. Secondly, when he signs from the genesis block, the market will tank so hard that you wish he never showed up.

To some degree there is still the thought of people that Bitcoin may be a get rich scheme, where Satoshi's presence will only confirm their doubts. Everyone blindly assumes he holds around 1 million BTC.

If enough people believe that, you can imagine how severe the reaction of the market will be. The Core developers know better than anyone what's needed to turn Bitcoin into a success, and we're working towards that right now already.

Yes, I believe His absence gave bitcoin the freedom and makes it difficult to be targetted.
Not knowing the developer makes it free of government control.  If he was present, government might have tagged bitcoin as a dangerous scheme, knowing it challenges the way they run the financial world.

Satoshi's absence did create many positive effect on the status of bitcoin.  He proved to the world that bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous (an innate attribute of the cryptocurrency), he shown everyone how a person can use bitcoin without having the need to link your wallet with a real world identity.

And his absence made true the offering of bitcoin to be decentralized where no governing central authority is needed to keep the system in existence. I believe the same as you do, should Satoshi decide to reveal himself, we might not have the same level of trust with bitcoin as people will keep thinking that Satoshi might be behind every dip and every rise.

There are more cases like, pyramiding schemes, hyip in other terms,  that uses bitcoin and most of it are hunted by FBI,  tracing where it came from, and of course decentralization is better,  once there would be a situation wherein bitcoin will be oppressed,  there would be no direct contact to the developer. 

It wouldn't make a difference whether or not Satoshi decided to be active in this space or not as what he created is decentralized regardless of his prescience, that is the nature of Bitcoin. Regarding whether he could influence price to a small degree if he were directly involved now, I think that would be a safe assumption.

Cryptocurrency aimed at decentralization, but this is unlikely. Rich people know everything is against the wishes of the founder. The rich are turning the focus to concentration. You are a small investor or go against everything if you do not want to become frustrated.

One of Satoshi's reason for creating bitcoin is decentralization. I believe that bitcoin will remain truly decentralized regardless of whether he is around or not. His presence may even be enough to take bitcoin to a higher level earlier than anyone can imagine.

Satoshi made the right move to disappear from the scene, But people know that he still owns 1 million bitcoins and that will never change. He also owns millions of other forks from the bitcoin forks we had and will have. Having a million bitcoins is not gonna centralize the system. It is already decentralized because no one can stop anyone from transacting or mining bitcoin.

And now we've reached the stage where I honestly can't tell if you're trying to deliberately twist what I'm saying, of if it's just a matter of you being too simple to understand it.

I'm not saying you have to follow Core.  You are a total moron if that's the conclusion you somehow manage to draw from my words.  Developers do not decide what the consensus is.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" if you believe developers get to choose what that is.  Users determine consensus.  USERS.  Do you need it written in brightly coloured crayon or something?

The users who secure the network either by validating transaction with full node software or by mining  decide what consensus is.  Your software needs to conform to the wishes of the users.  If you do not conform to the wishes of the users, you can be forked off.

But no, keep telling those fairytales about "bypassing consensus".  Some gullible noob is bound to fall for it sooner or later.  

Bitcoin is decentralised.  You're free to run alternative clients if you remain compatible with the code other users run.  Bitcoin has a level playing field.  Consensus cannot be bypassed.  Either accept it for what it is, or continue to have zero credibility while you've got your tinfoil hat on.  It's not a conspiracy, the users just don't agree with you.

Based on my perspective bitcoin is somehow on both sides by portion. However I think that if satoshi is still giving instructions to the current devs. I personally think that we might be able to follow the decentralized path better than now.

I strongly believe that if satoshi is here until now it can never be like ETH. Because one thing is for sure satoshi probably has a different objective than the CEO of ETH.

I think it is possible so but not always the case. There are many altcoins whose founders are around yet still they are doing perfectly well on the market. I think decentralization can happen even in the presence of founders of a particular coin. Who knows if Satoshi is alive or dead, I don't think much is known about this genius who created bitcoin.

Somehow that can be one of his intention why he left and never showed again but with Vitalik Buterin, I thought he's going to make it as Ethereun 2.0. Is that another coin or an upgraded Ethereum?

And with Charlie's absence after he expressed his leave to Litecoin due to conflict of interest is also the reason to make it fully decentralized.

I don't think that bitcoin could ever be truly 100% decentralised. That's just the case with all the bitcoin businesses that are holding funds for its users.

At some stage, you still have to trust someone to hold funds for you.

But apart from that, I'd say that the absence of a leader does probably make bitcoin more decentralised, and a lot more decentralised than a lot of other cryptos who have a leader who still asserts a degree of control over the coin. Perhaps Satoshi thought of this as well when he went AWOL, but that's all speculation.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

its not about my idea. its about decentralisation.
you think core being the sole BIP promoter and moderator is decentralised. and that just having followers is decentralised.
you think being a follower is a level playing field(triple facepalm)

wake up to the conversation. please learn consensus
you're concentrating too much on things like EC. as if its the only option thats not cores roadmap. there are many more. the point is not about segwit vs EC.. the point is we need more node teams that have their own proposals platforms so we dont have to jump through cores hoops of core roadmap or F**K off


not true
1. other groups wanting other consensus didnt mandatory activate their proposals.. they never caused their own fork. EG only the core roadmap had devs that done a august 1st mandatory activation with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks to bypass consensus even before the NETWORKS rules changed

2.you keep saying "current consensus".. well even before the segwit code actually activated the core devs and buddies mandated opposers should be kicked off.. WEEKS BEFORE activation.. to fake a vote to get an activation
this was not consensus. nor level playing field

the consensus weeks before activation was rules other nodes and pools would still function and accept.. but the REKT campaign of UASF were not going to let nodes that oppose cores future from opposing cores future. and that at a time where the consensus was still the same.. where having a network split BEFORE consensus changed!!
try checking the code, look at blockchain dates. oh and it was not core opposers that decided to make their own network first. as it was the core/USAF that were being biased. other nodes finally made blocks on a different network hours later. because core buddies didnt want them on the network. even demanding they change their code from the pre august code to make the core opposers become different.
again core making demands and acting like a monarchy.. WEEKS BEFORE CONSENSUS RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED

3. again you say nodes cant get kicked off if they follow CURRENT CONSENSUS
again check the block data and code... nodes were pushed off weeks before rules changed.

4. as for "bypassing consensus" well search out bilateral split. you will see gmaxwell and others talk about it. different buzzword, same event/meaning.
as for "mandatory activation" well search out UASF.. you will see loads of stuff. again different buzzword, same event/meaning

im sorry that i dont use other peoples buzzwords. i use common words that reveal the meaning more clearly
EG i dont call a lightning revocation. a "revocation".. i call it a chargeback. as its a more common word people can commonly resonate to as to what it means. if i said "revocation" people would wonder what it meant. which then becomes a whole meandered conversation in itself trying to explain it

EG i dont call a heart attack. a "mio-cardial infarction". i call it a heart attack, yea doctors may only use the word Mio cardial infarction. but that does not mean there is no debate about heart attacks or that only im concerned about heart attacks because a search shows i only use that term. i just dont be a jargon spouting elitist to convolute a conversation with buzzwords common people cant understand, just to avoid common people from getting involved in a debate

5. in real consensus event you are still on the network. you just have data rejected in a couple seconds. its then up to you to push acceptable data. or remain on the network but stuck behind.
seems you have been misled by thinking there are only 2 options are follow core or make a altcoin..
again it seems you want only core to control the rules...

..
anyway. i do enjoy your comedy moments of trying to distract a decentralisation debate to take thee emphasis of decentralisation becoming lost since 2013 and just becoming distributed code followers but centralised change to code
and also the trying to make it a social drama of "franky1 vs core"
but the reality is the rules are controlled by one group and only distributed to people who only FOLLOW the rules of cores roadmap because those that dont want to just be followers but also offer their own innovations separate from core get REKT

you can spend all century trying to meander the conversation into a personal attack. but that does not change the data or history found on the blockchain and within nodes. that show that there are no other teams offering proposals separate from the core roadmap sheep follower hierarchy. nor are there any data that disproves that UASF was not a thing.

also i can find many posts where you are the one that has said if people dont like whats happened to go make an altcoin or go play with another network. typical BS response

It has actually been a great blessing in disguise for Satoshi Nakamoto not to be at the scene at all. If he was known, people wouldn't have believed the concept of decentralization as it would always seems to be controlled by one man.

Sure this a key point for me. Satoshis' absence make Bitcoin truly Decentralised! Imagine if he had been here...

To an extent yes. If Satoshi had been in the know, bitcoin wouldn't be as decentralised as it should. It will look as if it is being controlled by one individual but by being anonymous and allowing the community to take consensus has really helped bitcoin.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.



And how do you propose "REKT abuse" be prevented?  Do you have any actual solutions?  Or just more whining?  You can call it out for what it is when you see it happen.  You could try to present a superior argument (assuming you had any ability to do that).  You can point me in their general direction and I'll defend the developers who dare to write controversial code, as I always do.  You can't prevent people from shitting on things they don't agree with, though.  Life doesn't work that way.



Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?