Topic: How do you feel about control versus freedom in Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 642 times)

they don't have to be on two different sides. the freedom is the most important thing but also since we are in a decentralized system everyone should agree about a change or that change must not happen if they can't reach an agreement.

i don't like playing with terms like "soft/hard fork" i believe they mislead the arguments. i say any change in consensus rules must only happen with the majority's support and if that can not be reached then that change must not happen. otherwise we do not have a healthy decentralized system.
so far all the bitcoin "changes" have happened with this kind of majority support (over 95%) and that is why bitcoin is still strong and has not split into more than 1 chain.
and that is why i strongly hate bitcoin-cash which never had any support, clearly visible based on their initial hashrate and lack of usage in the past year.
this is also why i hate things such as BIP148 and all those who were misleading people at that time like LukeJr.

there are two different discussions here:
1. disconnecting from a client that is following different consensus rules
2. disconnecting from a client that is following the same consensus rules but is just different

the first one is a must and it should happen automatically too, like disconnecting from BCH nodes in August when the fork first happened.
but the second one is a dishonest and dirty move. like disconnecting from btc1 nodes that were enforcing the same consensus rules but were being banned months before the deadline of the 2 MB hard fork came.

it is impossible for everyone to go through the code or even compile it themselves. but i believe that people should at least read the change log to be aware of what is being changed. new versions are not just new features, there are bug fixes too that may be influencing you.

no i don't believe that but they certainly have a big influence as they should since they have the experience coming from years of working on bitcoin and that doesn't have to be a bad thing. although i have seen a bad mentality grow in the past couple of years, specially in 2017. for example by that time if you asked those who were passionately against BClassic, BCH, SegWit2x,... and were supporting SegWit or even UASF why they are against the first and for the second they would have answered because core is not/ supporting it. and that is a dangerous thing.

---

i still believe that we need multiple implementations of bitcoin that are preferably written in a different language by different teams so that they don't have the dependency which would also prevent problems like this one, although you can read the discussions against something like that in this topic too but i still believe the benefits are more..

I think Bitcoin should stay anonymous as it is right now which makes it worth using (all cryptocurrencies basically).
And if that must follow some rules to make it worth continuing using it for than i'm ok with that as long it stays secure.

• Freedom of course.
• Hmm well the way its been handled so far has worked, we have Segwit and LN now.
• You cannot do much about that, people can also ban specific IPs because they don't like their behavior.
• "In Core We Trust", until the market says otherwise.
• Most miners agree with core anyway, and those who tried their own way have forked and gone without much success, proving the point.

Freedom is Bitcoin's most important quality. It is not possible for everyone to agree or be happy. Ensuring agreement and happiness is counter to the concept of freedom.


There is no way to enforce the kind of consensus you are describing other than through mining power and forking. Any other proposed system of governance is wishful thinking or anti-freedom.

The purpose of a soft fork has nothing to do with governance or consensus. Its purpose is to make a fork more convenient and less disruptive.



A person running a node is free to do whatever they want to do, including connecting to a node or banning it. Beyond fraud or harming other people, morality has nothing to do with it. If the node runs software that you object to, you are free to modify that software (or get somebody else to modify it for you) so that it will work the way you want it to.


I don't keep a close watch, but I try to be aware of things like the time luke-jr modified the version of Bitcoin installed with Gentoo to blacklist certain addresses.


I don't believe that any person or group has complete control, but I feel that Bitcoin Core does exert the greatest amount of influence. Of course, Bitcoin Core itself is not a cohesive group of people, but they are controlled to some extent by an oligarchy.

I believe that having several alternate clients would be ideal, despite the engineering and coordination problems that might create.
[/list]

"Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks? "

code that is set to automatically ban nodes/reject blocks of an opposing brand on a certain date, by strategic nodes(thus not requiring all users to agree to the plan.
and doing so BEFORE the a future feature the code writers wrote even activates. is immoral

by this i dont mean a independant user decides to manually disconnect its peer, whereby the peer is then free to connect to someone else. i mean where a BRAND produces code that would cause a network affecting disconnect.

as it is the same as apartheid. banning black people from voting in a election only allowing certain demographs to vote.
where by only white supermisists only get a vote in the later actual vote
and same goes for the 'compatible' nodes (analogy mixed race) which dont get a actual vote, they are handed a voting card but treated automatically as abstainers and not counted. thus again faking consensus while given the illusion of being part of the community still

banning nodes AFTER activation. to reduce orphans, fine.
but doing a mandated apartheid banning threat before consensus is reached is immoral

as for "hardfork" at 95%
if 95% are running software that accepts a feature to allow activation. those 95% wont see/feel a fork. the 5% not running will just stall out at a certain block number (stall, not fork)(2013 leveldb) or would if 'compatible' be handed stripped/mutated/edited data to atleast get some resemblance of still bing part of the blockchain, though at a downgraded position than before.

however doing things such as a controversial hard fork/threatening behaviour before activation of feature. purely to get/persuade people into activating a feature, where an actual hard fork larger community participants will be affected prior to activation. is not the spirit of consensus agreement.

as odolvlobo says below. alternative brand clients would be advantageous. and if a feature was truly beneficial to the community alternative clients could easily agree on it as they would see/want the advantages too.
obviously without community agreement obviously the feature needs to be worked on a bit more before being accepted.

by only having one brand that deems themselves authority/reference/core part of the network to just activate stuff under whatever policy they please leaves the network at risk to low quality code activations and trojans/tactics that go against the very purpose of bitcoins invention. thus having an array of diversity is beneficial. and single branding is actually more of a risk

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  
• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
  
  
• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
  
  
• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them.  Just express what you feel confident about.