Topic: How do you feel about control versus freedom in Bitcoin? (Read 719 times)

Thats why I adopted bitcoin, I used bitcoin because I was amazed by its anonymity. this is very innovative and very new.
so when there is a rule that requires anonymity to disappear, of course we are very disappointed with that

I agree bitcoin in recent time will stay anonymous but it's possible to find people how do control bitcoin as currency to ensure their security.

Obviously, bitcoin biggest asset is its freedom. You cannot please everyone, take that into your head. Going back, freedom is the biggest asset if bitcoin because it let its users to use it in everything they want. You can use it to buy your needs. You can also use it investment like in hodl. You can even use it for you to be able to play on fair  gaming sites  that everyone does for them to have enjoyment and to remove boredom. You can use it to almost everything, unlike the fiat money that it's like you have always been tracker to all of your transactions.

Banks are not into Crypto currencies for pure profit, they want to use Crypto currencies because it gives them more control and also more opportunity to track the money flow.
So, our financial freedom with Bank coins will not exist, once they developed their own technologies. ….So say goodbye to fiat  

Freedom is the ornament of Bitcoin and just because of which it stands out among the tradition digital assets.

basically, the idea behind the cryptocurrency which was begotten by blockchain is not for control to exist but to give freedom of individuals to control their resources. Hence, the idea of control was not intended for the technology but for certain reason a certain group of people decided to regulate certain features and that gave birth to control but i feel it is not relevant

Freedom is not everything you can't gain any profit from it. But yeh i prefer control be patient and let the thing happen. You should always invest which you're willing to afford. Waiting is the key of success in crypto currency where freedom is for failure. We all know bitcoin is decentralized no one know what will happen tomorrow better to wait and hold coins

I agree. At least you make them all happy.

I take freedom. You cannot please everyone, even you do all the best you can. At least with freedom, they can do what they wanted to do that will make them happy. [/list]

I agree with you 100%. And not only that, but also something that could have high possibilities of negatively affecting Bitcoin's future growth rate.

That's where our aim should be, based on the core principles of Bitcoin and the reason it was created. We shouldn't betray that. Changing the world is the main goal, not quick temporary measurements.

Just so I've got it clear, which part were you saying "No" to?  The "Is it wrong or immoral" part?  Or the "Should users be allowed to" part?  The discussion that led to the disconnecting code being merged can be found here if anyone wants to read it for themselves.

We also need to understand that what people see as real freedom is not viable to do in the current society, otherwise it will be the game of some people taking advantage of the others and without something effective to stop them it would be a lot worse. Look at Venezuela.

We also need to understand that everybody won't fully agree with any idea. People have different opinions and even if they are cool and/or smart people they have different backgrounds and stories.

I believe that we need to find balance between control and freedom in a way that best benefit the world in the future.

again doomad you are ignorant of facts

firstly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not to do with the actual activating segwit.
it was about disconnecting opposition

secondly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not requiring the community nodes to do a dang thing
it did not need 9500 nodes to manually disconnect opposition..
it did not need majority do something to cause the controversial network affecting (aparthied analogy) bilateral split

can you stop pretending it was a 'individual freedom' where you had the choice of going into your node and disconnecting who you wanted. it would have still happened even if general community did nothing.

the purpose was to FAKE a majority by diluting the network to then cause the network to appear like segwit was in full agreement.

this kind of immoral control stuff is exactly what the problems with digital money pre millenium. and how it took satoshi nakamoto to  come up with a byzantine solution.. but now there is no byzantine generals(plurals) and things are now just a single general. the whole point of blockchains and decntralisation is lost. because consensus has now ben bypassed

the real MORAL flow of a consensus should be as follows
1. feature proposed.
2. users adopt or not
3. if adoption reaches a threshold it activates. if it doesnt reach a threshold it doesnt activate
4. the threshold should be high enough or have a waiting period for any laggers to update after activation threshold before the network change so that it doesnt cause much orphan drama
5. if orphan drama is noticable after network change then disconnect opposing nodes that are causing orphans

NOT
1. feature proposed
2. disconnect opposing nodes even before activation, even when they are not causing any orphan drama. but done so just to get feature activated at any cost
3. less nodes on network but those remaining are showing as agreeing.. certain blocks are rejected by fibre even before reaching main relay stream thus again making it appear as full agreement

try to learn why the cypherpunks got excited about satoshis byzantine generals solution.
try to understand why bitcoin WAS revolutionary and WAS decentralised.
i know you advocate that you prefer core control and love to defend the core devs

but put the core dev defense hat away and instead think for a few minutes. what if the core devs and their partners done the same 2017 tactics, not for segwit, but for a feature that would have killed bitcoin. knowing general nodes were acting just as sheep. where cores tactics only needed their fibre and their dns seeds and not the community to activate

bitcoin 2015-19 is not the same ethos as bitcoin 2009-2015

oh and as for your silly rant about
"You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork."
1. no where have i said its always was, is , should be 95%.
the reason i mention 95% is because that was the threshold of bip9. which CORE USED and which CORE had to IMMORALLY disconnect nodes to fake achieving.
2. i never set the threshold as 95% i didnt choose/code/invent, i had nothing to do with 95% so go do some research next time.
3. again show me any code that makes you think im some authoritarian that produced a high threshold... hint i didnt
4. so stop trying to make it out that i am the nasty controller and authoritarian. when the only people that coded immoral consensus bypassing crap were the core devs
5. also a true consensus if majority threshold was reached MORALLY, it would not even be a "hardfork".. which just shows you really need to do some research

You are entitled to your wrong opinion.  But it should be pretty obvious by this point that for the entire time you've spent on this board, every single time you've ever used the word "consensus", you are referring to a version of it that only exists in your imagination.  Here in the real world, functioning adults find themselves in situations where pragmatism is favourable to childish naivety.  Maybe give that a try for once?



You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork.  Recorded events have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that such a preconception is utterly wrong.  The threshold for any consensus changes is clearly dynamic.  It is entirely dependant on what code users are running at the time.  

You are welcome to express your written preference for 95% hardforks.  You are welcome to run code that doesn't activate a feature until there is 95% support.  But the simple fact of the matter is that if other people on the network are running code that says the feature can activate at 80% hardfork, or that a change can be implemented via softfork, your preference is not sufficient to block the majority.



94% is a majority.
87% is a majority.
75% is a majority.

You can't single-handedly enforce 95% as the only acceptable definition of the word "majority".  You can't single-handedly enforce making people wait around until a certain date or the threshold you personally want to see.  If it was a vote (it's not), you would be able to enforce those things.  Voting is not akin to freedom.  Voting is how those in control present the illusion of freedom.  Voting restricts freedom, so I can see why you'd naturally be a fan.  You would love a Bitcoin where you could suppress and stagnate any advancements and hold the network to ransom until you got your larger blocks.  Screw your precious voting.  Screw your "95% or stagnate" ultimatums.  Screw your hate speech against the developers who found a perfectly valid way to keep Bitcoin intact while implementing SegWit.  No one cares if you don't think it's fair.



Wrong.  But thanks for allowing me to point out why you're wrong.  Please keep telling us Core are in control becuase you are bitter about the fact that you couldn't hold the network hostage until Core coded a client supporting a larger base blocksize, like you clearly thought would happen because you don't understand freedom or consensus.

---

And that's it in a nutshell.  We can definitely have a discussion where everyone can argue the pros and cons of any given proposal, but it's categorically not a vote where everyone has to agree.  Each user will naturally do what they believe is best for the good of the network as a whole.  Those who can reach an agreement will move forward together. 

BankCoins and GovCoins are more likely to be stablecoins so they will be pretty diffrernt comparing them to other currencires. There will be some purpose to buy them that will be related to issuer's service and won't be giving you a profit for HODLing them.
Also public should have an influence. I'm sure that banks won't sustain their coins if they won't be getting any profit.

Wow OP, that was a real mouth full and a can of worms kinda post. 

I think the freedom from the majority consensus is already a huge step in the right direction, because we will be seeing the competition crushing that freedom with centralized control in the upcoming BankCoins and even some of the GovCoins. People will only appreciate the consensus based "freedom" of Bitcoin, when they see what Banks and governments will be doing with their coins in the future.

If some developer or node does not agree with changes, then they are welcome to create their own Alt coin and if they get enough support, then they can force a hard fork, so there is nothing wrong with that idea in my opinion. 

as far as "freedom" goes, anybody should be allowed to make any kind of change and make any proposal they want and have the freedom to put it out there and ask others to follow it if they want. but also it is our duty to fight proposals that have a very high possibility of splitting bitcoin into two. in my opinion the damage that such type of split can cause is far more dire than anything else.
BIP148 would have basically created a SegWit chain with minority support (~10% miners which could have gone to 30% if the rest of the SegWit supporting miners switched and about 10% of the nodes) and the rest would have remained in legacy chain rejecting each other!

Of course there is no freedom for everything, but in some aspects bitcoin gives freedom to anyone. You will definitely find a lot of control on third parties in Bitcoin, such as online wallets, exchanges and so on. but in some aspects of true decentralization still exists.

"there is no vote"
well thats true now core have ways to bypass consensus

but bitcoin 2009-2017 was not always that way
2009-2015 consensus did function. there wer mutple brands on one network. none of them had mandated apartheid consensus bypassing code. it was a simpl reach a certain vote threshold and the proposed featur activates. if a feature didnt get the vote it wont activate

ya from 2015-2017 core slowly eroded away the consensus mechanism making nodes more like sheep with their "compatibility" consensus bypass stuff by not requiring nodes to upgrade to show opt-in/consent/vote to activate
and by knocking nodes opposing a core proposal off the network BEFORE a vote
so now that everything is core dev controlled (code, nodes, fibre, dns seeds) even a vote is not needed


so doomad by saying consensus(voting) doesnt exist, there is no thresholds needed anymore. no need for byzantine generals theory solution. thus admitting core are in control and decentralisation is dead.
(distribution vs decentralisation are 2 diffrent things)

and if doomad dares to flip flop to then say nothing gets activated unless majority vote to activate it.. then he is just flip flopping and being pedantic

doomad.. your flip flops are stupid
you say there is no vote and then say majority.(facepalm)

if there is no vote then there is no majority/threshold
dont then say there is consensus because you will ofcourse then say the network is permissionless and devs dont need consent

for months you keep flip flopping. atleast stick to one narrative
again stop flip flopping. stick to one narrative. admit core control the network. (no vote/no permission=nodes are just sheep)

Freedom to do anything with bitcoin would be anyone's goal as people wouldn't want to live without it. But sometimes freedom would affect the advantage that you can have. See how governments played an important rule in the success of a state. A lawless state will end up dying at the hands of those who are grouped together, organized by laws and created it for the common good. In the bitcoin system when it becomes open to anybody, without rules without anything governing it, It will end up in a great trouble. How about its effect to the economy? We know it is tied to money our fiat currency and wastage of bitcoin could be just the same as wasting ones money. How about possible manipulation? What can we do with it? How about concerns regarding hacking of bitcoin accounts? How can anyone just anybody help the victim? These are a few things for me that needs to be addressed before we shall fully make bitcoin free to all or anybody without any control or regulation. It could have been better to let things run with freedom but sometimes freedom will cost you opportunities. I think such regulation will be necessary.