Topic: The Bitcoin Community & Decentralization (Read 1284 times)

You are still talking bullshit, and putting words in my mouth.

The only thing that I admitted to is that Core is superior and it should have monopoly if people agree to it.

I havent said that other options are not welcome. Well they are, but if they are crap, they cant compete anyway.

You dont know the difference between forced monopoly by decree, and voluntary monopoly by superiority.

Nobody is forcing people to use Core, but its still the best because it is of high quality, whereas the other clients are pretty subversive and quite dangerous.

OP, I think that KYC is actually needed to be done to fight cases where scams may occur.
So, giving real info is the only option to deal with those issues, which is why talking about anonymity is just a "talk" only and not going to be possible until everyone goes honest and starts using bitcoin-only websites where no such details are needed to buy/sell anything.

Someone needs to put words in your mouth because your own words don't make a shred of sense.  How does alternative code pose a threat to the code in Core's repo?  In what conceivable way is it overthrowing or subverting their software?  Why would "they" want to be included in the Core development team if they don't agree with the course Core have set?  What are you going to do if Core lose their way at some point in future but there's no alternative because you wanted a monopoly?  

Luckily you don't have to answer that last one because your misguided notion of monopoly isn't enforced in the code.  The consensus mechanism you purport to preserve is actually the safety net that prevents monopoly, so users will always have a choice if our direction becomes wayward.  Something tells me you're never going to grasp that fact.  I don't know how you can sit there and claim you know what's best for Bitcoin when such a simple notion is so completely lost on you.

There is no such thing as a takeover attempt when it's the users securing the network who determine the code.  Developers releasing code does not and cannot constitute a coup.  The code is inert if no one runs it.  Users will always have the option of running Core's code if they so choose.  So it stands to reason that your insecurities don't lie with the developers you lash out at, but with those securing the network who don't share your authoritarian views.  

You are afraid of the very consensus mechanism you claim to defend.  You don't trust the market to govern itself.  You opt for authoritarian interventionism at every opportunity.  You are literally a cancer to decentralisation if you believe in 100% centralised development.  There's no other way to say it.

You are talking bullshit.

What I said was that Bitcoin Core has total rights over their own Repo.

I didn't said that Classic and Unlimited doesn't have a right to exist, you are putting words in my mouth.

However Classic and Unlimited doesnt want to compete with Core, they want to take over Core , which is quite different.

They want to be included in the Core Development team, that is my main issue.

And to which I said that the Core team is closed and that in my opinion it's better as it is. They have a monopoly, and that is quite justified.

But if you want to compete with them, nobody is stopping you, just that dont try to overthrow and subvert their software, that is my point.

And you're perfectly free to express that view in the code you freely choose to run.  But not everyone shares your view and they're free to run any code they like.  Hence the need for a consensus mechanism.  

It was already pretty clearly established that your only concern is with the fiat value of your coins, you support enforcing an oligarchy in Bitcoin and you feel you have an inalienable right to tell other people what code they can and can't run to protect your fiat investment.  As such, quite frankly, you're an insult to your own username and your view couldn't count for less.

The fact that Bitcoin is both open-source and a consensus mechanism means that anyone can not only read the code, but also alter it and make their own clients with their own custom rules to govern the network.  However, these rules only come into being if enough users securing the network agree with them.  This is more powerful than most people realise.  

Anyone perceiving an alternate client with a fork proposal as a threat, or worse still, calling it an attempt at a coup or dictatorship, or thinking that all the core devs have to agree all the time has fundamentally misunderstood the concept of open-source decentralisation.  Just because the majority of the users securing the network agree that Bitcoin Core is the correct rule set to govern the network at the moment, it does not mean that this will always be so.  Being a developer for Bitcoin Core does not grant you any special power or authority over the network, nor should it.

The definition of "consensus" in Bitcoin is not a single group of developers agreeing on a rule and the network enforcing it without question.  The true meaning of consensus is that any developer can propose a rule and the network chooses whether to enforce it or not.  Ergo, Bitcoin is inherently resistant to authoritarianism.  It would be incredibly difficult for a single developer to seize control or enforce rules that the majority disagree with.  

I can tell you that people care about decentralization but the services offered by discentralised exchanges and co cannot be compared to the centralised ones, with time things should improve.

Because I dont think that Classic and Unlimited has the best interests of Bitcoin as a goal. I think they are selfish and want to use bitcoin as a lab rat to prove their own ideas, even at the expense of risking 15 billion of other people's money.

So far the Core team is the most respected, and although the repo is closed, everyone has commit access, and then experts can choose what will be implemented or not.

The code adding forum is open, it's just that the final word rests in the hands of experts, which it should be.

If you're both so fond of decentralisation, why do you campaign so vociferously for centralised development?  Again, this seems to be another example of people confusing "consensus" with "herd mentality".  What you've completely failed to comprehend is that by ostracizing other developers and also the users who run their code, you're the one questioning the consensus mechanism.  In reality, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with if you force everyone to agree via coercion anyway.  Bitcoin was not designed to enforce the status quo.  If you believe it was, I'm afraid you have been grossly misinformed.

Simple question, which scenario sounds more decentralised?

a)  A single development team produce code which all users run without an alternative and there's no point whatsoever even having a consensus mechanism to begin with.

b)  Multiple development teams provide several possibilities for the project's direction and those securing the network determine which code should govern the network using consensus.

_{Hint:  it's definitely not a)}


The lack of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, indeed, but the lack of wisdom is even worse.  

We've got a beautiful thing going here, so I don't understand why people want to ruin it by pushing a closed, restrictive mindset on an open and permissionless system.  Recognise and appreciate what you've got, ingrates.

I don't have idea regarding openbazaar but i have once tried bitsquare platform but couldn't find any exchange deal listed that i am comfortable with and also i think it will need lot more time for users to understand how those decentralized marketplaces work. May be we need more time to see people actually using decentralized marketplace. Also lots of improvements needed in those decentralized marketplace to be able to compete with well known centralized marketplaces.

Bitcoin decentralization is just a dream.

Bitcoin is mined by a few big miners in China,and most of the btc is owned by a few big btc holders.

Btc decentralization is over.

personally whenever i say "decentralization" i am talking about bitcoin itself being decentralized not all the other services involving bitcoin, most of the time these services have to be centralized.

but i agree that other types of services that offer more decentralization, such as those decentralized exchanges and also this awesome project called OpenBazaar are things that we should think about moving to and start using. but the problem is that they are not the same thing as their counterparts and unless then get closer i don't see how we can start using them.

Well bitcoin users love decentralization. But because of anonymosity the numbers of being vicitimized by scammers and hackers are increasingly going up. With these effects, people tend to find sites that can offer protection to their bitcoins, many also wanted to make bitcoin wallet regulated to  stop the scammers and hackers in their move. If there are no greedy humans then decentralization will be successful but due to the dark nature of man bitcoin will no longer be anonymous in the future to protect oneself from digital investment threats and frauds.

Decentralization has long way to go like bitsquare is too slow and open bazaar too. Plus they need to advertise?

like so many other things people are only gonna care about decentralization when they actually require it. by the time they actually do, it'll be way too late. people are lazy and decentralization costs extra in terms of money and convenience.

You're right, there are far more people using Bitcoin as just another method of making fiat (look at the signature campaigns that end up in this thread).

There's more than that though. Reading the posts on this forum makes me believe many people don't truly understand what decentralization is and isn't relating to Bitcoin. The decentralized outside services like OpenBazaar and Bitsquare.io are just that "outside services". They really have nothing to do with the decentralization of Bitcoin but are nice services for the community to have available. I think most people don't use them because people are basically lazy and refuse to go through any additional steps to use them. Providing your financial info (something people are already used to doing) allows a level of automation that feeds the lazy nature of humans.

the volatility of bitcoin should not make it easy to be held for a long time without a use but bitcoin are being advised by some to be held in wallets, it should be moving around like every other currency or be used as capitals(like in the altcoin), working in the economy of the world.

but to me i think the main reason behind this is that the users of bitcoin are still very low and the bitcoin is still not providing such facilities to the people for which it has been constructed and therefore people are using it for investment.

People don't like too much when they go beyond of what they know. Ebay is very easy to use in comparison of OpenBazarr, I faced many problems when I installed the application and I got frustrated. I am stubborn and I got it to work, the average joe needs something easy to use and not to have to fight how to get it work.

decentralization doesn't only include 2 or 3 things. it also means that you can freely use bitcoin on your own and nobody can tell you how to or not to use. and that in my opinion is the center of decentralization of bitcoin.

and about what you said about exchanges it is because there is no "good" alternative. for example all those decentralized exchanges out there lack publicity and also they do not offer the same features meaning I can not trade bitcoin with fiat now that it is rising fast and efficient using alternatives to regular exchanges.

and also the same thing about openbazaar. it is an awesome project and I will always say this but it is not user friendly. you can't use it the same easy way you use eBay for example and the benefit of using openbazaar is not big enough to make average Joe give up eBay and similar sites and come use Openbazaar.

Moreover, a lot people still don't care what a wallet they used, it's like "the important one is bitcoin wallet", unfortunately some of them used exchange wallet service for main wallet which unable to hold private key.

Decentralization exchange actually still lack of user needs, like transfer to local banks directly (worldwide scale).


This is the disease.

Openbazaar quite complicated, but there are a tutorial for user which if they read it, they will get it https://blog.openbazaar.org/openbazaar-user-tutorial/#.WGAyUBL_gqI