Topic: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? - page 4. (Read 19972 times)

Not so much angry, just irritated by your speech pattern.  You waltz in, claim that "we're not really decentralized" without understanding how it works.

EVERYONE has permission to modify the code, and EVERYONE has the CHOICE to choose what they run.    There is no "central authority".  There just happens to be one person right now who provides bitcoin source.  If that were interrupted, either the system would die, or someone else would take up that mantle.  That fact isn't "too obvious to discuss further", you're simply not understanding the idea behind Open Source Software.

So, you agree, that the group of people, or more accurately, the set of accounts, that have the permission to
modify the code, plays the role of the central authority in Bitcoin, and still may affect the rules of operation?
I think, that fact is too obvious to discuss further.
But the whitepaper says it is impossible. Please correct me if I'm wrong and misread the documentation.

Are you angry with me? I have nothing against you personally. I have nothing against you at all.
Sorry for making you so angry, that wasn't my goal at all.

We have people here who review the code for differences each time an update is released.  I have begun doing this as of the last release.

There are two types of changes that such an impersonator could make:

1) Non-breaking change.  A change can only be non-breaking if it cooperates with existing clients.  It can only do this if it follows the mathematics of the system, because anything which changes the mathematics will be rejected by the other clients.  There is absolutely no threat from a breaking change, unless someone cracks the factoring problem and can solve the hashing problem instantaneously, in which case we have bigger issues to worry about.

2) Breaking change.  This changes the protocol or mathematics of the way the client operates.  Thus, other clients will refuse to work with newer clients.  This raises huge red flags.  This is the only kind of change which could potentially allow said power to compromise the system.  If someone releases a breaking change, I'm sure as hell going to read the code in order to find out what changed.  I'm sure there are many others who would do so as well.  Through open communication, word would spread of this, and releases from said power would no longer be trusted.

Open source software prevents such attacks. Bitcoin is still a small project, yet we already have watchmen guarding the code, the operation of public binaries and the block chain.

True.

But let's imagine some fantastic, but still real situation.
Some evil power, like government, terrorists, mafia, you decide, catches some real person, one, who is used to be Satoshi, the originator of the idea.
They do evil things to him, feed him with drugs, beat him, etc... I wish it never really happens.
Imagine, they manage to get the access to his accounts, so they get the power to impersonate him on the web.
Imagine, they are well trained people, well supported and have access to all kind of expert knowledge.

Doesn't that power implies the power to propose new changes to the rules?
Doesn't that power implies the ability to modify the code, that will be used by every Bitcoin user later, after
everyone updates?

I don't know how it is possible, but can anyone please comment on why possessing that power does not
allow anyone to achieve one or all of these goals:
1) ruin the system
2) manipulate the system to harm it's users

Well, you may as well say it's just a paranoia, relax and take a rest.
But then I do not understand why it is not a paranoia to expect Bitcoin to sustain some large power attack.
Sorry, so far you have considered, that some large evil power plays by the same rules, by the rules of mathematics.
But if it is not forced to, why should it? It is cheaper to introduce it's own rules if it have a goal to undermine Bitcoin stability.
It will just use the people factor.
How sustainable the Bitcoin to that sort of attacks?

Hepatzion: Still, even if 50% of the clients took on a new system, the old clients could maintain their own sub-economy if they so choose.  A merchant can refuse to sell/buy from "version 9" clients, and only deal with people earlier.  While this would cause the economy to be fractured, it'd still prevent a complete dictatorial takeover of the system.  Those who didn't like the changes in the new code COULD, by choice, choose to not use it, and maintain the current economy.  There's no central authority who will arrest/enforce you to switch to the new system.

At this point, if someone released a new client with better features and that was backwards compatible with the old clients, I think people just might adopt it in favor of the old client ... even if it also accepted more rapid block creation or whatever.  Especially if this hypothetical client were to be released by Satoshi and put on the main page.  Once we get a fuller ecosystem with a whole bunch of clients (think how many clients implement Bittorrent) that will be hard - if not impossible - to do.

The official rules of bitcoin aren't written in stone, they're written into the clients.  As long as it is possible that 50%+ of the network could switch to a new client, it is possible that bitcoin could radically change.

The very fact that we discuss the rules disproves you.  If satoshi was the "central athoritative provider", what point would there be discussing?  We simply ask satoshi to implement it, because he's most familiar with the code and because he's willing to do so.  We're the ones with the power to change the system, as WE'RE the ones who choose which client to run.  Case in point, Olipro wrote his own code to change the system that many of us are now using, converting it to 64 bit calculations.  Is he, also, in control of "all the power"?

Stop with your doomsaying and incoherent nonsense, and put forth an actual argument that ISN'T filled with vague generalities and disconnected sentences.

Satoshi have as much power as Google has over the internet, which is none.

The internet interpreted censorship as damage and route around it. The internet will also interpreted bad money as damage and route around it.

We accept the code voluntarily, not by coercion. If better code comes along, we are welcome to leave the current code for the better code. The author of the code holds no power over us or our ability to choose any code available. Therefore he has no authority over us. We have accepted his judgment because he has not sought dominion over us or our common currency.

Why do people ask to change the rules?

Like changing the thasaction fee value? Isn't it fixed in the static rules already? So why do we still discuss things like that?
Only because Satoshi may change that at any moment, or after some delay when he decides to do that. Or he can't already? Correct me, please.

Why do people discuss the deflation feature, isn't it already a part of the fixed rules?

People propose to change the block generation period, after which the difficulty changes to accomodate to the overall CPU power.
Like changing it to 100 blocks, instead of ~2014 (I don't remember exactly, sorry).
Isn't it the part of the static rules yet? Someone still have the power to change it?
Someone proposing to change the 50 BTC award for "winning a block ", why don't anyone reacts with "Sorry, it is too late to change now" ?
Is there some other rules, that still discussed and may be changed in the future?

Am I wrong? Is Bitcoin really a final standard? Will it become a final standard?
Until then, Satoshi is the central authoritative provider of the rules of the system.
It is lie to say, that there is nothing like that in Bitcoin.
I do never said anything about Satoshi is going to do evil things with his power.
But he has the power. You cannot disprove that.

actually they are.
the rules of "creating bitcoins" doesnt change, its fixed, static and public too,
same goes for transactions and the way they'r saved, in blocks, that's what the whole generating-process is all about,
also static, also public.
what else do you need?
i dont get your point.

The only "centralized authority" is the mathematics behind it.

It's the mathematics that makes it secure, not the "single source".  It just so happens that he's providing the source code, but anyone can write their own client which adheres to mathematics, and have it work on the network.

Yep. You are right.
We all can read and compile. But we have to trust single source of the code, that implements some standard, or
we have to trust the standard, that defines the rules, and implement them by ourselves.
But to do decentralized development, we have to agree on the rules before.
The rules must become public,  static and standard. This is not the case for an experimental phase of operation.

So, you can read the code. No, you can ever write the code, really. So can I.
So what if my code gets rejected by the majority? And your's too?
We do not have enough authority to overtake the majority.

Well. I just want to point out, that saying, that Bitcoin have no centralized authority IS NOT CORRECT.
Because it has. No more. I didn't say it is bad.

If you've got some valuable arguments, show 'em,
you didnt so far.
yeah, "the authority", if you want to call him like that, wrote and published the code
and guess what?
you can READ it and compile it yourself, no need to trust anyone but yourself.
that's what open source is all about.

If it were microsofts code, you weren't able to read it, you'd have to trust (and pay) Bill, but you'r right, it's not.

I suppose, that is a valuable argument about Bitcoin system security.
Don't forget, we are thinking about using Bitcoin for transferring the values between each others, not for just talking about it.

...

"The authority" has ALL the nodes.
He published the code. You installed that code, look, it's not microsoft's code.

And you will update your code, as soon as new release comes out. Or sooner, to test.
If not, your node will get ignored by the others, who updated and play by the new rules. By the majority, I suppose.

"The autority" will continue to have ALL the nodes.
Fork the code and your nodes will be ignored.
Fork the code and you split the network, splitting it's strength, breaking the system.

"The authority" is single and central.

I find it ironic that bitcoins are the first scarce commodity money created purely by fiat!

Does that make it fiat-commodity money?

Fiat of the code.  It's the code that's king, not any central ruling body.  Satoshi wrote the code, and published it (not just the compiled mysterious binaries, but the entire code base, which several people have successfully compiled), so you're more than welcome to read said code and understand the rules.  Also, it's unreasonable to assume that satoshi has more than half the nodes, consider a) someone had 1000 cores running at some point, meaning satoshi would have had to have 1001 at least.  Not to mention all the people here who have nodes, and all the lurkers.

This post sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid nut-job, and reads like many conversations I've had with people under the influence of drugs ("The man", "The authority" etc.).  If you are seriously concerned, I appologize for making the comparison, but you're more than welcome to verify the behavior of the network yourself.