Topic: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? - page 3. (Read 689 times)

Being anonymous or not it wont really be the main thing for people or community would decide if they would support such tech it would always matter on its revolutionary features the only thing would differ is that when satoshi shows himself it can give out some confidence but he still decide to be anonymous and lurking somewhere in the globe seeing his own creation do stand without the need of his publicity.
This really proves out that bitcoin can stand on its own.

im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules" as though it somehow wasn't acceptable for them to do what they're currently doing.  Otherwise I can't even begin to take you seriously.  I find that mentality deeply disturbing.  It doesn't matter if you now go on to sound like the most reasonable person on the planet, because I'm now stuck thinking your true colours are the ones presented in your earlier post.  Tell me that you give all developers (yes, including that one) your full blessing to release whatever code they want to, regardless of how much you might personally disagree with it.  Otherwise you're no better than the "REKT" brigade you claim to hate.



And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

And don't presume to tell me what I'm thinking, because what I'm thinking is how much I'd like to insult you when you do that.  You don't do yourself any favours.



We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

You obviously do not want a centralized dictator making all the important decisions, but people tend to look for a leader and I

think it is a animal instinct in humans. Put a group of people together (specifically men) and you will find that there will be

conflict in the beginning to sort out who the Alpha male must be. Satoshi managed to remove the need for centralized

authority, by leaving so early in the experiment. ( I do not think it was intentional, but it was the right outcome ) 

it's a good idea, but I think, vitalek must keep monitoring every ETH development. especially when the market is bullish, because the bullish market is always a lot of negative things that can affect crypto stability.

I think, that Satoshi's decision left bitcoin to create a free bitcoin market cycle. so the market can control every bitcoin development. then utilized by whales, investors, and traders.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required

as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning

Precisely.  It's not practical to expect every single person to agree on everything forever.  Forks are inevitable.  At all times users are free to decide which forks they choose to transact on.  That's what guarantees decentralisation.  Developers can't force changes that users don't agree with, because the users would simply use other software.  As such, there's no point in trying to place restrictions on what developers can or can't create, because only the users can give that code any real meaning or substance.

---

Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  



Then you're not very good at explaining yourself, because that's exactly what you've proposed on more than one occasion, including this one.  Or are you now retracting your "core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" statements?  I don't see any other way to interpret those words.  You want to change they way they operate, but that's not your call.  I'd say this if you tried to tell any other developers what to do.



I'd love to see some code you wrote, where is it?  I'll support and defend your right to create that code.  I won't try to tell you what that code can or can't do.  It's perfectly acceptable for your code to have activation dates and fork Core clients off the network if that's what you want your code to do.  Users will then be free to run that code if they want (a somewhat dubious occurrence, but that's not the point).  That's freedom in action.  Consider giving it a try, maybe?



You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.



Then why, over the years, have I also defended XT, BU, 2X, etc?  I certainly wasn't winning any popularity contests doing that.  But decentralisation and freedom means they were free to release that code.  So I'll continue to defend their right to do it.  Why am I always the one who is stating categorically that they are not an "attack on the network" and that they are merely filling a niche in the market if I'm such an ardent Core supporter?  I aim to be as neutral and impartial as the protocol itself.  As such, neutrality means all developers are free to do what they want.  



How would it be a level playing field when you are suggesting restrictions on certain devs?  Logical fallacy.

---

For the topic as a whole:

If you want a truly decentralised network, that means everyone is free to create to the code they want to create.  You don't have to like it and you definitely don't have to run it, but no one can stop anyone from coding anything.  It's something that's easy to forget when people propose controversial ideas or release a client you might not personally approve of, but ultimately, there's no way to prevent people from doing that without closing the source and making Bitcoin centralised.  That said, it's also worth remembering there are some risks to having multiple clients on the network.  It's a fine line, but things seem to be working out okay so far.

We have something beautiful here, so let's try to focus on that and not undermine it.

doomad

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

its not about restricting code they want. its about the code they want IS restricting others

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

but look WHO is and look WHO you are defending
core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)
atleast recognise the difference and realise that you are not defending bitcoin but you are defending core.

in the last 9 years it has only been core devs and their buddies that have lead REKT campaigns. only core devs and their buddies that have supported mandatory activations and only core devs and their buddies that have added code to throw certain nodes off the network

as for user choice. show me a proper full validation, full archival, full node that is in no way affiliated with following the core roadmap, that offers their own community BIP gatway where users can offer suggestions of possible future features..
that does not involve moderated hop skip and jump(3 moderated venues to pass) to even get a chance to vetted into a client software

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

In the first place Satoshi didn't want to use his 'power' to affect the network as he wants the community to come up with solutions of their own and let consensus pave the way for a better bitcoin. As what he always says, bitcoin is free from any central authority, and the community can always create what they think is the better version of bitcoin, hence why forks occur. Also, any 'head' of a coin somewhat gets the 'authoritative' status and any remarks/comments they make has a huge effect on the coin and the markets as well, so it's better for any coin to not have a central figure IMO.

Back to the topic, then.  Do you get more decentralisation from a system one where no one is in a position of authority and there's no way to restrict others from creating the code they want to create?  Or a system where someone is in a position of authority and people can't create the code they want to create?  The general opinion presented in this topic so far is that Bitcoin is less centralised if there's no one in a position of authority and I agree with that.

Allude to my prior post being off-topic if you like, but I think it's quite salient to this particular discussion.  My point isn't that I want to forbid franky1 from trying to dictate things (because he's clearly free to fail at doing that all he likes).  The point is that while he claims he advocates a decentralised system where no one can restrict people from creating the code they want to create, his instinctive reaction to achieve that goal is to wish in vain that Core was restricted from creating the code they want to create (which could only happen if Bitcoin was more centralised and someone was in a position to enforce that).  I honestly don't see the harm in pointing out both the futility and the hypocrisy in that stance.

Bitcoin doesn't have centralised development or a "monarchy", it just happens to have a particular group of developers where many users choose to run that client because they believe it to be the best code available in the current market.  Consensus hasn't been "replaced" and it's still the users who ultimately decide what that consensus is.  There are no "mandatory code changes", there are only the rules enforced by the protocol (and again, it's the users who decide what those rules are).  The only way Bitcoin could work as franky1 describes is if it was more centralised.  

read my footnote.
plus if you think im a dictator. i would be actually trying to DDos core. or rleased some client with some mandatory code.
yet im just saying my opinion. there have been many topics where you defend cores monarchy. i get that, you have a buddy system. cool for you
that doesnt mean others cant have opinions and call out the crap that occurs

there has only been one group that have actually acted with dictatorial methods. and you can guess who that is

if i see something wrong. ill call it out. but calling it out is not a dictatorship. its just calling it out.
im sorry if i upset your buddies, but calm down. its not like im the one that pushes out mandatory code changes that only had 35% community uptake before and after

And you don't get to forbid others to dictate/suggest what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works...

We can do it all day long, or we could stick to the topics and stop projecting shit on others.

Wrong as usual. 

You don't get to dictate what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works, Mr Authoritarian.  Everyone can do what they want.  You don't have to like it, but there is no obligation for them to do what you want them to do. 

I hope that Vitalik will indeed depart from the helm. For the last time, the fake news of his death brought down Ethereum by 30%! I think the publicity of the Creator is very bad for the coin. IMHO

Being decentralized goes beyond a terminology but also being seen to be centralized. A system can claim to be just and fair but in the eyes of everybody, its just a term that is being used to deceive people for others to have their way. If Satoshi has been around, I believe strongly that despite the known fact that bitcoin is decentralized, it will still be subject to some conspiracy that there is some behind the scene control that is being done by Satoshi that would negate the decentralization principle which I think is one of the reasons that Vitalek is taking this position but I doubt the effect would be as effective as that of Satoshi because while Satoshi has been believed to be a nick name, that is his own real name and whether he likes it or not, reference would still be made to him till forever.

 Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized electronic money and central banking systems. The decentralized control of each cryptocurrency works through distributed ledger technology, typically a blockchain, that serves as a public financial transaction database.

I think you're right. Satoshi's absence makes the community more independent and, as a result, more decentralized. It seems to me that this is the problem of Ethereum now, because it depends very much on Vitalik and therefore cannot be fully decentralized.

Decentralisation doesn't guarantee the success of a coin, just take a look at ripple which is vying for the number two spot. Litecoin survived without charlie lee and ethereum will carry on without vitalik