Topic: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? - page 10. (Read 8220 times)

How do you define 'lot' ? 10+, 100+, 1k+, 10k+, 100k+ ...what ?

Indeed. In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus. (oh but argument to authority blah blah. yes, and anyone who actually groks why its 51% are baffled by people who argue it shouldn't be)

Anything over and above that is just being kind. Any grace period of X from Y blocks is a courtesy. These measures are already *far more reasonable* than the actual consensus mechanism.

Remember when organofcorti argued over some percentage point slippage, and everyone jumped on the fact it might activate with *oh the horror* only 68%. This is *still* more than consensus. It is still deferring power to the status quo. This can't be overstated. The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.

The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.

If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.

The argument about fake nodes only works if those nodes are miners, they would have to partake in mining blocks until the 750/1000 trigger is hit. Then as soon is that happens, and a 1MB block is mined, they would reject it and immediately implicate themselves. In a trust centric system thats probably a bad business plan.

The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.

It also does not matter as long as the technology could be replicated by independant individuals and hence serve other purposes as those from governments and corporations.

That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate. (see the hundreds of vigorous and dishonest attacks that inevitably are posted by single use throwaway accounts.)

There was never a period when it was just Gavin working on Bitcoin; this is a common narrative people spin but it is incorrect.

I can't speak for everyone. But I own a lot of Bitcoin. Blockstream's compensation is setup to make sure everyone receives time locked bitcoins so that everyone at blockstream has an interest there too-- I am aware of no other company in the Bitcoin space that this can be said for... Not to mention that no question ever seems to be asked about incentives or funding sources for the people opposing.

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Indeed. Well more over, if someone were out to be evil they could just as well _not tell anyone_. I could _legally_ if not ethically be off working for EvilCorp and not tell a soul.  Based on what I've seen in this, people do a pretty poor job at asking probing questions. It's not the risks that you know about that are the most likely to cause harm, it's the ones you don't know about.

Normally if is made a concern must be made even a proposal. To criticize or to make doubts is normal but is not normal to be stopped here. Let tell that you have right. What it would be the solution of this situation? Creating a corporate with 1 000 000 or even more owners (miners and users of bitcoin)? There are way much less them who must take care for bitcoin and are divided because of bullshits. How can be managed such kind of structure according to you? According to me must think before telling something. As I told even in some other my posts written before, it is easy to destroy but is hard to build. Everyone is able to destroy but only very few are able to build. Are you able to build? For such kind of people have need the world today and forever. Maybe even for destroyers but way much less. And only when after this act will be build.

If anything is far more reasonable than 75%, then the Satoshi 51% fork, dear Monero troll!

I feel really bad for you dedicated bastards who actually put your time and talents into developing a potentially revolutionary technology, only to get shit on constantly by the ridiculous mood that's been overtaking the Bitcoin community lately. I'm largely a lurker on these forums, but it's gotten to the point where the noise is so abundant that the only way I feel that I can get useful information without dealing with overwhelming amounts of junk is to directly follow your posting history, Mr. Maxwell. So thank you; thank you to yourself and all of the actual development team that has done so much and put up with so much crap for the sake of an idea. I don't have the skills to offer much to Bitcoin, but I'll keep running a Core node for as long as it is viable to do so (which, best case scenario, might well be forever).

Core development used to be literally controlled by one individual (at least entity ), first Satoshi and later Gavin. I think it may be more meaningful to ask another question: Is the interest of the Bitcoin economic majority well aligned with the interest of the company doing most of the protocol maintenance? Even if there is no company, you can't rule out the possibility of most core devs suddenly go evil and conspire to destroy Bitcoin - They might have a better chance that way.

He left as in gave up commit access. It became obvious that he was not the 'problem' and that the 'Blockstream is evil' propaganda still persists, there was no reason to give in to trolls and shills.
Indeed.

Propaganda and lies are 'honest' disagreements? No. Either they're shills or there is something wrong with them. This has gone far beyond 'honest disagreements' (if you want those don't read almost anything in the last 6+ months).

The question is why are some of the members here buying into this story? It is pretty clear the that other side is going to use just about anything to get a successful 'fork' regardless of consensus.

Recently. Too ignorant miners wanting short-term profits are the primary cause.

You _left_ for a month, and magically your email to the mailing list became core's official roadmap. So yes, there are some more than tangential connections here. Your visible agitation towards having to deflect this isn't encouraging.


More stories you've concocted to explain away criticism in your mind. They want some clean on-chain scaling so they must be altcoiners, anti privacy agents, or the same people that had us pinned at the 1MB limit for years with data storage and spam... Look, everyone wants LN and sidechains to exist and be functional, they just want them to compete on an even, not heavily slanted playing field.


Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.


Exactly. Well put.

IMO, no matter what happens to Bitcoin, if some people end up wanting decentralized money in the future they will have it. The technology can't be un-invented. If the 'main fork' of BItcoin eventually becomes highly centralized, some decentralized fork will spring up as long as there are cypherpunks who value it. Or some new cryptocurrency will be fill the 'hardcore decentralization' niche.

I think the right direction is to let the protocol more or less fixed and spread it widely so it understood by more people. Just like IP protocol taught in many universities today

If you constantly change the protocol, then all the effort that countless people have put into making educational material and tutorials/books/videos will all become irrelevant very quickly, this is a way to not become a standard

People are talking about blockchain today, but then they heard that bitcoin is not blockchain anymore, it has changed to segwit chain, and maybe in future it will change its chain structure several times a day due to soft fork is totally safe

Governments esp. the US one have shown to have a great interest in compromising the ability of anyone to stay anonymous for the sake of law enforcement. Tor is a thorn in their eyes, while at the same time they need it.

Thanks for making my point though. Some core developers are funded by blockstream, but that does not mean the core development or the bitcoin development in general is driven by the company.

I thought Blockstream are into sidechains, which I believe will become an important part of Bitcoins future, and enable it to become a world reserve currency. Why should their sidechain activities mean they are taking control of core?

Wait, PwC is behind Tor?

Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.

What are our options, if you truly look into this a little deeper? The evil are coming from all sides. Our Options were Blockstream or Gavin or Mike Hearn and all of them had a hidden agenda. You will never remove the human element out of any technology or innovation.

Give me one team without a hidden agenda and I will follow them. If not, I will follow the people with the good code. 

The nature of greed is to spawn multiple heads. Bitcoin and it's value attract that sort of beast, which is sadly inevitable; Bitcoin Incorporated is inevitable.