Topic: Please list arguments against the idea of taking away Gavins' alert keys - page 5. (Read 3895 times)

It still makes no sense how people can think consensus means "a small minority of coders have to agree all the time".  Consensus is what the majority of the users securing the network agree on.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly (yes, OP, I'm talking to you and anyone else with your broken mindset).  If you genuinely want a protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You don't belong here.  Go away.

Can you provide a link to that?
They were fighting over the fork, so I don't see a reason for them not to fight over this. You should be aware of the amount of drama that there was (is) due to the fork.

However I'm not sure if forking is the right move.

It's about consensus in the community and not in the code. So BIP makes not a lot of sense here. Showing the fastest route, that's all.

What would we do to create Bitcoin without Gavin? Just look for a broad consensus in the community for it and after that is reassured we'd just ask the core devs to look at our community decision and if they aswell agree they could then with the support of the community change with no code changes to a new github without Gavin commit access or alert keys. People could then choose to update to the new client if they wish to not be bothered by Gavincoin-spam in their Bitcoin wallet or just use the old one in case they don't care about the alerts.
Actually for users not a lot changes. The only sideeffect i could imagine would be the one from Gavin loosing his mind and abusing his old alert keys to confuse people who haven't upgraded to non-Gavin-Bitcoin yet.  
So basically nothing would change except Core moving to new github with new alert keys. End users shouldn't notice. Miners don't need to upgrade. Change is potentially reversible (but unlikely to reverse afterwards) and has no impact on the network, market or miners whatsoever. It doesn't even need testing on testnet! No change to the code and can be done in an afternoon. Discussion could be brief and action swift.

I think if someone disregards consensus process in the devteam and starts to attack the network he himself has actual commit access and alert keys to that's a pretty good reason to reevaluate if we still feel much longer comfortable with Gavin.

But all past changes to Bitcoin have been through the BIP process, a consensus approach would be different from the past approach to changes.

What would we do, create a new wallet without Gavin's Alertkeys and if enough people adopt that new wallet without the keys then eventually it forks and we move forward with the new consensus wallet?

Asking Gavin already happened. He does not react. So that's that.

Shouldn't be preceived as 'war'. We're just looking for a consensus which in case it can be found is likely the opposite of war as it would put all this upheaval in the community to rest and we could go back to fight bulls vs bears instead of Gavincoin vs Core which i think everyone prefers.
I'm just proposing the most simple and obvious solution to the blocksize debate and i think this proposal should be absolutely included for the options to resolve the "great bitcoin blocksize crisis"

How about this proposal:
They actually ask Gavin about it? There is no reason to be waging unneeded wars, hopefully the peaceful method is going to work.

This isn't a feature in the wallet.


Looks like it's unavoidable. Actually consensus rule works great in many cases and ensures something is supported by very many people when a real consensus is found. Employed correctly it can bring great benefits... Bitcoin runs on it so how could there be a better method? Actual consensus means change is supported by more than a supermajority or at least not opposed by people.


Right now we certainly don't have consensus for a Gavin with Alertkeys so i thought i'd bring up this topic to test if there was even still support for him in any way, because if it wasn't, consensus would actually lean more towards the new proposal to exclude him.

So that's why we're interested in voices and arguments against an exclusion of Gavin as those arguments will be the only obstacles to overcome to reach solid consensus on the proposal.

So don't be shy, list your long and personal list why you think Gavin holding the alert keys is absolutely vital for Bitcoins' viability and why the sky would fall for you if a consensus would be forming for his exclusion. I'm begging you please give your reasons to oppose this very simple one-line and non-code proposal!  

So you don't think we should follow the BIP way of adding features to the wallet?

Does a consensus approach seem like the best way to make changes to Bitcoin?

Proposal: Ask the other coredevs to fork the github away from Gavin to take away the alert keys and commit access from him . This comes as a reaction to him not honoring the consensus process and actually engaging in a software propagation war which is actually a hostile takeover attempt and for putting investors into massive unease with this shenangians aswell as stealing countless hours of everyone with his kindergarden, and even impacting the market negatively and hurt investors confidence a great deal.

I think we have sufficient reason to make this proposal and i feel many will support it.

Consensus works this way: Someone makes a proposal and if there are no concerns raised or veto given then there shall be a consensus.  

So i raise the question here what are the things and concerns that would speak against this proposal?
Because if nobody raises concern and can defend that sufficiently we'd have a consensus for it.

So if you are against revoking Gavins' commit access aswell as alert keys: now is the time to speak out. If nobody does, the consensus would be established already with a proposal meeting no veto.

Please, if you have valid and rational concerns about revoking Gavins' alert keys and commit access list them below. Thanks.