Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream - page 3. (Read 7342 times)

What you are saying is true, obviously.

The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'.  Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts.

In fairness, he hasn't even managed to get a majority in his own troll-poll. he is a divine tosser.  

---   -----  ----  ------   --- -- ---- ----  ----- -- ---

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up-noonoopol-1091654

If you can't explain your reasoning, you fail.  Are you afraid I might see a flaw in your logic?

Yes, there must be the rule set which all participants must agree on (that's what consensus means).
It doesn't necessarily imply there must only be one centralized code repository.

Are you trying to formulate an argument? Because I don't see any.

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

---


---

Oh, I almost forgot:  Could you ask ~justusranvier to come back out of hiding at the next strategy con-call?  We lovers of lulz would appreciate it.  He probably feels that he has 'burnt his books', but I am sure that there are a lot more newbies and simps out there who would be amenable to his brand of shtick.

Maybe but I don't see why it couldn't change.

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

This is the old myth that the devs are who shape Bitcoin, rather than the market. They think that without their wise guidance, investors would be lost in the woods. Dev input is taken into account by investors, but not just that of the Core devs or Core committers.


Gmax even seems to believe - as the unstated logical endpoint of some of his reasoning - that without Core committers' veto power, soon the market would go wild and lift the 21M coin limit, too! This shows a total misunderstanding of the implications of Bitcoin being open source. Some big investors could bid up BTC in a fork where the 21M limit was removed, and make it worth more than Bitcoin - at least temporarily - if they have deep enough pockets, but unless that change somehow turned out to be value-enhancing, that fork would eventually fall in price and be eclipsed by classic Bitcoin again.


For the same reasons, investors will not support a fork that results in centralization. Or even if some investors do, there will be plenty that won't and the rest of us can just ignore the ill-fated fork. In fact, with all forks being on the market, anyone astute stands to make big money trading these forks, selling their coins in the value-damaging forks and buying coins in the most value-enhancing one (which will almost certainly be the one that doesn't change the crucial parameters, of course (if you think small blocksize caps really are crucial, go ahead and make your money by selling off your coins in the bigger block forks)). This will ensure that the full wisdom of the community is marshalled toward determining the most valuable changes. Like how a prediction market distills the wisdom of crowds in such a strikingly effective manner.

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What makes it so special?