Topic: Please list arguments against the idea of taking away Gavins' alert keys - page 4. (Read 3895 times)

Forking github, not the coin, man.


This comment is the only valid concern i can identify. This would also be a concern to me. This would of course need to be adressed.



Exactly. This and i feel blackmailed and distorted by Gavin and personally would wish he would be excluded from everything 'Bitcoin' so i can feel safe again storing my hard earned money in btc again.
If he keeps being accepted as "bitcoin dev" by the community i am sorry, i wouldn't invest a dime anymore into this.


.................


ok, guys. One single valid point against the proposal raised so far... well not even against it in case we can sort that thing out somehow. (could send new alert keys to satoshi known email adress and theymos could also get the new key, why not?)

No veto or serious counterargument raised so far to the proposal. Al i get is ad hominem. Looking good this far ...  

Most of the block size threads are alt coin losers trying to make it look like Bitcoin has some inherent flaw.

The block size limit was added as a band-aid fix against spam and can easily be changed as needed.

End of story.

I know that its a feature of bitcoin core. The worst case scenario would be that, dont ask me why, gavin would use his key sending a message like "Caution. This wallet will stop working tomorrow, you wont be able to access your bitcoins anymore until you download bitcoin xt". No, i dont want to explain why he should do that. Though i believe thats what the op is fearing. Even when a new wallet gets released then probably a lot of nodes were lost already. They wont get to see another possible alert.

People who create threads like this are bad actors in our community and should not be taken seriously.

Satoshi gave the alert keys to Gavin and theymos. I do not know they have the same "keys" or different "key" for different individual. I assume the alert key is one key and all holders have the same key.
(Any verified info on the "key" or "keys")

If core devs fork away Gavin's key, are they also forking away Satoshi and theymos' key? This surely isn't the right direction to go.

Um...the alerts are just a feature of the Bitcoin Core wallet. If abused, a few lines of code are deleted and a new wallet released. Or you use another wallet without the alert message.

It's basically a way to send a message to all of the wallets in case of an emergency. Like what happened in 2013 where we had to have a hard fork immediately.

Forking away... sounds like another fearbringer to the community.

Though i see what you fear. I see the risk it being misused.

I wonder what could be done in case its really misused. Will it be possible to overwrite his alerts? If its possible to overwrite them fast then i believe it wont be a big problem. Awareness about the message will happen fast and countermeasures can be taken.

So you're saying the "million bitcoins" Satoshi supposedly owns will never be spent?

That would send the price to the moon and all trolls that keep bringing it up would have no argument other than hoping and wishing that he is still alive.

If Satoshi is dead then luckily he gave Gavin the alert keys so they can still be used in an emergency like when we had to fork in 2013.

Don't you think it'll be a total mess of yn alert popping up in the wallet and half the community said 'ignore it' and the other halve said 'don't ignore it'? I think this would be heaps of stress for the noobs or casual users. Also many would go falsely upgrade without checking forum first and thus creating more chaos with them ending up supporting a software which they never would in their right minds just because an abuse of the alert system.

I like the idea of containing a lot of possible damage and confusion before it happens and also end the populism end endless debate in the same stroke. I think doing this could help restore confidence in Bitcoin.

@DooMAD

We're actually discussing a clear cut proposal, not the emotions of people proposing it ... ad hominem btw ...

@Elwar

Worst and most screwed up trolling i've seen in a while ...
on second comment: satoshi could be dead

@LaudaM
Forking the github is an entirely different thing than forking the netowrk. Forking git does not require any action from users. It's just the formal act of removing Gavins' power to alert Bitcoin users about whatever comes to his mind. Nothing more, nothing less. Replace 'fork github' with 'moving to a new one'. In case we can establish a consensus on it, it would be painless and won't be a big deal in the end of the day.

...............

ok, guys, i'll leave the thread to you for a while and will be coming back around as soon volatility of global markets lets me. Could be a shaky week ahead. I hope some of you raised some rational points why Gavin and nobody else needs to hold the alertkeys till then. If you don't thats fine too.
More "i think you're dumb", "this proposal is shit"  or "does the title read 'update XT'?" can be posted but should not be responded to. See you next week then. Maybe we get some support, maybe we get some alternative resolutions, maybe we get valid concerns raised about this proposal. Anything else would be out of frame and would require a new thread.  I know you dont care but i said it anyways. Have a magnificent week, everyone.

My argument against it would be that Satoshi still holds those keys as well. I respect Satoshi enough to not take that from him.

I disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that the average user of Bitcoin has no idea of what is going on behind the scenes apart from reading a bit on some news website (which mostly spread FUD).
I think that alert keys have a certain power to them, else he would just give them up. However, it really depends on how much the person is familiar with the situation and his own judgement.

Also I do not agree with the use of power to take away the keys nor forking again.


Update: I didn't realize that you were talking about that.

OP is basically making that argument and wants everyone to upgrade to XT.

One one side of the blockchain upgrade proposal are the folks that say we need to follow the BIP process for any Bitcoin upgrade.

On the other side, Gavin and Mike Hearn after much discussion have left the decision to the Bitcoin community.

If enough people start using the XT wallet then consensus will be reached and the block size will be upgraded. A method the OP appears to prefer. As opposed to the BIP process used previously.

I thoroughly read your last comment.  I understand that you honestly believe the alert keys can be abused and that the whole network will come crashing down in spectacular fashion.  But you honestly believe this because you don't understand that the alert keys really aren't that powerful.  I could write in this thread in big red letters:

HEY EVERYONE, UPGRADE TO XT RIGHT NOW!

And that would be about as effective as a malicious developer "abusing" the keys to further their own agenda.  Any user who is capable of mining or running their own node should be sufficiently capable to make a decision on what software to run.  Even if there's a message from a developer saying there's a different version available, it doesn't mean they're going to run that code.  

I repeat again, your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  

In no uncertain terms:  The. Alert. Keys. Are. Not. An. Issue.



For a fork to occur, there has to be a majority.  Sure, 53% for example wouldn't be enough of a majority, but the word "majority" doesn't magically change to a different word when we reach the required proportion of the network.  It doesn't mean 100% of users have to agree and it definitely doesn't mean all the developers have to agree.  You can try to twist that any way you like, but it doesn't make it any less true.  Try less clutching at straws and more trying to understand what I'm telling you. 

You didn't read my last comment. I'd continue conversation with you in case you can raise rational points to why Gavin (and nobody else) needs to hold the keys.  


--------------
edit: btw if like you say everyone would just go rogue that would result in accidental fork and chaos relative rapidly. There is a good reason the devteam uses consensus methods to release a software that's kind-of official. It avoids confusion, scams and accidental forks of the network. Everyone releasing rogue software will not work in the long run, but that's total offtopic now.

another point:

This is actually contradiction because consensus isn't equal to majority vote. Totally not. Maybe you, sir, go and look up a definition for 'consensus' before spreading more nonsense. Cheers!

also on 'fear': it's the first letter in FUD and also a force driving markets. So i think we can express it. Replace with 'concern' if it suits you better.

Bolded your overly-emotive wording to highlight the real problem here.  You fear too much and for no reason.  If you want a "rational argument", I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence of that in what you're writing here.  You aren't being rational at all.  Anyone reading this thread who actually understands how this system works, will come away from this thread with the resounding impression that your argument is "anyone should have the keys but Gavin because I don't understand how decentralisation works and I've worked myself into a panic over nothing".  You can work yourself into a panic if you want, but those with any sense whatsoever won't be joining you.

Think it through for a just a moment.  What's really the simplest solution here?  Your proposal is that Bitcoin core has to be the only client for the rest of forever and all developers have to agree on everything for the rest of forever.  Every time someone doesn't agree, a larger number of people have to reach an agreement that the developer who didn't agree has to be stripped of their ability to contribute code or Bitcoin will die a horrible death?  I'm sorry, but that's stupid.  There's no polite way of saying it.  

The easiest and most simple solution, which is the one we're already using, is that any developer can release any client they want and the users make the final decision.  It doesn't matter if you don't trust one particular developer because it isn't your sole decision and it isn't the sole decision of the developer you don't like.  It is the decision of the majority of users securing the network.  That's what consensus means.  If you can't grasp this simple fact, Bitcoin isn't for you.  Either you accept the decision of the majority, or you don't.  Those are the two options.  Pick one.

So who should have the alert key?  If whatever client you choose to run has an alert key system, there will always be a group or individual in control of that system.  Any developer could, in theory, use that system at any time to give out any message they wanted.  But at the end of the day, it's a message.  No one can force a user to update their client.  Your argument is that Gavin could potentially use it to tell users to upgrade to XT, but I think you'll find he's already telling users that they can upgrade to XT when the time comes, so who cares?  Commit access is also irrelevant.  If the code contains a feature users don't approve of, they aren't going to run that code.  Anyone can release a Bitcoin client at any time, under any name, with any features they so choose.  If you decide to use that client, it means you agree with the code those developers have put in place.  Your assumption that the current group of developers (minus Gavin and Mike) are in a better position to be trusted with the alert keys and commit access, as if they were some permanent authority on what Bitcoin is and should be, is entirely flawed.  On top of that, there's also no reason whatsoever why Gavin and Mike can't continue to contribute code to core, because there may be other features and changes where all the developers of core do happen to agree.  It's not "them versus us", so stop trying to paint it as such.

Your proposal is basically an insult to everyone's intelligence.  It boils down to "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me or scary consequences will happen".  Grow up.  That's not how this works.  Developers can disagree as much as they like, because ultimately, it's not their decision how the network should be run.  

I'd need to search a great deal for that link but you can actually go and ask him yourself. Maybe he is more responsive to you?
When the community can establish this proposal as a solid consensus there wouldn't be more 'fighting' in the devteam. They'd just discuss an afternoon without Gavin about it and then say "yes" or "no, because ... "
This thing is a non-code change and thus can be sought after in the community. The devteam does not need to start discussions about bitcoin that do not concern code. That's the part of the community, i think.  

Forking the github (not the network) is the move proposed in this proposal which has generally no big impact if there is a consensus for that change. If there are better routes let me know but i think there aren't any to exclude Gavin without much more drama.
If there were other proposals to do it differently you can make a new thread in a similar fashion and we could discuss it as an alternative proposal.

Ever thought about the dev team actually hoping for this to pop up as it's totally not on any of them to bring up this proposal? This particular proposal can only be started and debated in the community and only if we are able to reach a good consensus on the issue we'd even go and bother the devs about it.



Hate to repeat myself: he has commit access and even the alert keys to the coin he starts to propagate alternative software to outside of the original devteam, de facto starting a software propagation war with the very people he supposedly works with and potentially tainting the whole thing badly or even crashing the market to worthless.
Its not about asking the devteam as we all know people could vote to move away from them aswell but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to take away Gavins' (and possibly Mikes') alert keys and commit access because we have reason to ask for it. The current other coredevs aren't up for discussion in this proposal and thus they'd probably be the ones doing it. So actually that comment didn't make much sense to me.


Not exactly. First talk to people (that's what we currently do), make that proposal (happening right here) and if there is no strong enough opposition to that proposal we can then go ahead and take it a step further. So that's why we're asking for opposing arguments or concerns to this particular proposal!  
If no opposition springs up we could already have reached a very solid consensus. Ultra fast lane to consensus!  (definition: absolutely no opposition to a proposal means consensus - that's what we're trying now)
So before the change comes people will know it and support it. If there is any kicking and screaming (like we saw recently) then we can assume there is no consensus! So i'm asking for the kicking and screaming up front now and if there is nothing of that, then we're on the fast lane because no concerns or veto for a particular proposal means after doublechecking if the consensus is real we could go ahead with implementation.
The right to veto (including reason) for minorities stays fully intact and thus it's a 100% valid consensus seeking process.

Ya, I guess that makes sense...just create a new wallet and if enough people adopt it then consensus is reached and the new code would be in place for Bitcoin.

If only they used your approach for getting consensus on a new blocksize.