Topic: Greg Maxwell is now the owner of Bitcoin. That's all. - page 4. (Read 5084 times)

centralized control= one person/group makes the decision and everyone else either follows or they can get lost
decentralized control = everyone is equal, and if there shows a majority of consent that something should change, then it changes.

EG
centralized = one team change code and say upgrade or be paralysed, or f**koff
decentralized = every users flags a desire. if a majority show similar desires then that desire activates.

EG
softfork does not need 5700 of 6000 nodes(95%) 'permission' / consent to activate, it can function with just 2 nodes. causing the other 5998 nodes to not understanding the data that the 2 nodes are transmitting, but pass it along anyway

This applies pretty perfectly also to USD and FED and so they are also perfectly decentralized. New stuff learned every day. I cannot think of anything that is not perfectly decentralized except maybe something in north korea.

But let's get back to reality. I have not heard any such definition for "decentralized control" which is intended to work like you say. "Decentralized control" is something where the system works having the control itself decentralized.

I think his not actually the owner of bitcoin and don't conclude that he is already are in your title, he is a core developer because on contributing so much in the industry of bitcoin that is why I think certain people like you think that he is now a owner of it, I think that nobody can actually owned bitcoin and keep it for himself a large number of community is needed to increase it's value from the past so the way I think of bitcoin we are the real owners of bitcoin everyone that are holding bitcoins from their wallets and keeping it alive until now.

Stop this trolling shit.  Nobody around here needs your type of reason.  This forum operates on entirely different principles and logic isn't welcome here.

There is no "owner of bitcoin", that was just a provocative OP to restart the never ending debate about where the real power in deciding Bitcoin's future lies.

Stop what? I'm curious that is why I'm asking if it is true or what. I was shocked when I read this that's why I asked. What do you want me to stop?

Stop it now pls.
tia

Greg Maxwell is the owner of bitcoin?! How come?! Is there any proof that he really is?! I thought it was Satoshi Nakamoto? Where did you get that information?

That's right,  don't be hurry to get negative conclusion,  at least we need to see the article/news of it. We don't know yet all about it, how could that happened, what impact to bitcoin, if something bad then we should be worry but if there's nothing that could be negative feedback to us, be calm down.

How can we believe that. I know everybody wants to get famous by publishing his/her name but buddy if his name gets famous the definitely he will become throne of everybody eye as we don't want to hear ordinary person's name as the owner of bitcoin. Ofcourse hoi could say that you are owner of bitcoin if you own all the btc mined till date.

If you have a hidden agenda, you will always find a stick to hit someone with, and this is the case with these people attacking Greg and the other Core developers. Most of them are spectators on the couch, with nothing more to do, than pointing fingers.

They should use those fingers to come up with some good code, and then see if someone would actually like it enough to use it. Consensus is a Bitch. ^smile^

Consent isn't required to soft fork. Did you not read the above post? Because it's accurate. Soft forks are a matter of processing power (i.e. longest chain), not a matter of consensus rules. A hard fork breaks the rules that users consented to. Soft forks don't.


Nodes implicitly agree by accepting the longest valid chain. That's bitcoin. Since Segwit transactions are valid according to the consensus rules (and non-updated nodes do validate transactions against the consensus rules), there is no consensus issue.


The only consensus issue relevant here is maxblocksize. Segwit will not allow the violation of it. Non-issue.


Not verifying new data suggests that non-updated nodes will allow invalid transactions/blocks onto their chain. That is not true. Non-updated nodes are still validating transactions against the consensus rules.


Consent = agreeing to the software's rules. You consent by running the software. Soft forking has nothing to do with the software's rules. They are network rules imposed by miners.

Shall we abolish P2SH now? Because you don't want to accept the longest valid chain?

Can we have quiet period of time without all that drama around bitcoin developers or institutions?
First Bitcoin Foundation turned out to be scandalous useless entity. Later one of the developer left and labeled bitcoin as failed experiment.
And now we have another developer blamed for being toxic and destructive individual. What next? Core dev team will split?

consensus=consent.

the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked

passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more.

infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes..

but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes).

lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin.
lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules.

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

Give up Danny, he's an idiot. 

Oh, and I'm so glad we finally figured out who owns Bitcoin. Now I can stop tossing and turning in my sleep. I guess I should give Maxwell's contact info to my attorney for all the money I've lost.

im starting to think you are not the same danny hamilton from years ago.

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of a soft fork or consensus.
if you dont care that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of decentralized and trustless

also if capitalization and full stops prevent you from reading, then its not just technical stuff that seems to be your problem.

by the way this is a forum not a white paper being submitted to earn a degree. if you care more about grammar then content,
then many things in life will be lost on you.

so enjoy blindly believing in fluffy spoonfed propaganda simply because its been constructively written to look degree level grammar(even if the content lacks merit). and enjoy ignoring the people that are more concerned with content, not capitalization.

1F Y0U C4N R34D 7H15 7H3N 9R4MM4R 15 N07 7H47 1MP074N7 4ND Y0UR M1ND 15 0P3N 3N0U9H 70 7H1NK 0U751D3 7H3 80X

on a separate subject.
maxwell and friends are blaming the need to restrict capacity, by saying its because of spam causing the UTXO(unspents) list being so big.
that restricting capacity and raising the fee's is the only way to solve it..

when in actual fact the reason for the unspents list being so big is not due to "spam". but due to their own pushy idea a couple years ago that people should be doing "use once" addresses... but you will never seen greg and his friends admit his idea back then is the cause of the UTXO "spam" he is talking about lately

have a nice day.

I suppose perhaps english isn't your native language.

Your lack of typical capitalization and sentence structures makes it very difficult to follow your thought processes.  As such, I often find it difficult to understand what point you are trying to make.  Fortunately, with some effort though, I can usually work out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, at this point you seem to be saying things that don't make any sense at all.  As such, I'm no longer able to maintain a conversation with you.  You're making declarations that your beliefs are fact without evidence and without explaining why those declarations should be believed.  I can't follow your thought processes any longer, and am unable to comprehend why you think the things you think.

You've often accused me of being a "sheep" or "fanboy" of whatever you are opposing (even when I agree with you), and you've used me as an example of your beliefs (even when I've disagreed with you).  Your rants are getting tiresome, and your inability to accept that a differing opinion can exist in anyone other than a "fanboy" or "sheep" is insulting.

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'll be moving on from this thread.  It doesn't feel like productive conversation is possible any longer.

lol but core want to change the rules without even needing users to upgrade. thats what softforks are..
the only reason they use the fluffy blanket of 'activation parameters' are not due to acquiring a consensus (consent) but to fool people into thinking consent is needed.(its not needed fundamentally, its just added later to pretend its needed)

put it a different way
if 5500 did not upgrade to version 0.13.. core can still change the consensus rules, without anyone able to stop them
i think you fanboys are forgetting the logical, moral, and even the dictionary definition of these words
decentralized
trustless
consensus

put it a different way
you fanboys dont want people to fundamentally consent to a 95% requirement for a hard fork
you fanboys prefer sheep to blindly let changes happen and just pretend that everyone is consenting to it.

seems many of you have been sipping to much on the core soup that greg and his boss prepared for you.