1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
|
Return-Path: <milly@bitcoins.info>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B588AE7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:11:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1810EA7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:11:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA
; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:11:03 -0400
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
<558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDrCxLyxC=BkgiQOjRczy26kQOZb2+p9xDXOh4HuDG8nRw@mail.gmail.com>
<558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com>
<558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDpTuEoaXZ_M166UEe+z6t-hq39yJaF3K+aL_Ra836jnSg@mail.gmail.com>
<558FF307.9010606@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDpHL3RUXUK_PAiPv49EcxgjBSjPBwf=4VLhW0Y28OE=FQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55901F7D.4000001@bitcoins.info>
<etPan.5590456f.61df0e2.23f7@Patricks-MacBook-Pro-2.local>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <559054D2.3050009@bitcoins.info>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:10:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.5590456f.61df0e2.23f7@Patricks-MacBook-Pro-2.local>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------090408090002010502020600"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:11:12 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090408090002010502020600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I really don't know who has power to do what behind the scenes. From
what i understand, if push comes to shove, it is under the ultimate
control of one person who can revoke commit privileges. Maybe I am
wrong about that but the point is most people don't know for sure.
You are correct about the people having the choice to download but the
influence of the official release is way beyond the influence of any
forked release. What that means in the real world is an open question
and would be different depending upon the specific circumstances and
difficult to predict. It is significant power to have control over the
official release at the present time. If they did not have significant
power people would not spend significant efforts lobbying them to make
changes. Any new developers hired by companies will do so because they
can influence over the official release since that is the only incentive.
It seems to me that this block size fork is only the beginning of the
issues that will arise over the coming years. Whatever powers the core
maintainers have it is going to be exploited one way or another as time
goes on. Maybe there are enough feedback mechanisms to protect against
that, I don't really know.
Russ
On 6/28/2015 3:05 PM, Patrick Murck wrote:
> Wladimir has no more or less “power” to push change to the Bitcoin
> Core codebase than any other person with commit privileges to the
> GitHub repo. If I’m not mistaken there are 7 people with commit
> privileges and five of them are active. If Wladimir committed a change
> it could be reverted by any of the others. This is by design and
> ensures that changes will have reached some level of technical
> consensus before they are merged, among other things.
>
> Furthermore even assuming the Core Maintainer commits a change to
> Bitcoin Core (that isn’t reverted and that gets packaged up into the
> next code release) that still doesn’t push a change to the bitcoin
> network. There is no auto-update on Bitcoin Core so individuals and
> companies running Bitcoin Core software have to choose to upgrade.
> Further still, developers that maintain alternative implementations
> would have to decide to merge those changes to the codebase they are
> indepently maintaining (and their users would need to update, etc.).
>
> I understand why it might *seem* to be the case that the Core
> Maintainer is empowered to make changes to "teh Bitcoin" but the
> reality is that the Core Maintainer role is really about cat herding
> and project management of Bitcoin Core the open-source software
> project and not the bitcoin network. We’re lucky Wladimir has agreed
> to take on so much of the scut work to keep the project moving forward.
>
> The process might get ugly and inefficient but that’s the cost of
> having no wizard behind the curtain.
>
> -pm
>
> --
> Patrick Murck
>
> On June 28, 2015 at 9:23:47 AM, Milly Bitcoin (milly@bitcoins.info
> <mailto:milly@bitcoins.info>) wrote:
>
>> The core maintainer has always been in control of the consensus rules.
>> Satoshi came up with the rules and put them in there. Since then any
>> changes to any part of the code go through the core maintainer. It
>> looks to me as if people are saying it somehow changed along the way
>> because they don't want to hurt people's feeling, upset up, get them to
>> quit, etc. Sure there are checks and balances and people don't have to
>> use the main code base but if they change the consensus rules they are
>> incompatible.
>>
>> The notion that because people can download different rules and run them
>> is interesting from a theoretical perspective but that is constrained by
>> the network effect. I can say the US government is not the "decider" of
>> laws because I can vote them out, recall them, challenge things in
>> court, or secede and start my own country. You can also say the
>> judge/jury in a criminal court case is not a "decider" because the
>> president can always issue a pardon. But those points are generally not
>> useful in a practical sense.
>>
>> The issue about the developers is the tremendous influence they have to
>> veto any changes. I don't have veto power yet I have more bitcoins than
>> garzik says he has. The whole Bitcoin software development system is
>> subject to attack from just a couple of people who have this veto
>> power. With all the crying and moaning about centralization on this
>> list I would think that would be a concern.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/28/2015 11:35 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin
>> <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
>> >> I never said something was approved by garzik added something
>> after it was
>> >> opposed. What I said was a proposal was made and 4 people
>> commented on the
>> >> Github. He then tweeted there was near universal approval before most
>> >> people even heard about the subject. It was not controversial but
>> i was
>> >> pointing out the arrogance of some of the developers. He considers the
>> >> entire universe of Bitcoin stakeholders to be a very small group of
>> >> insiders, not the entire universe of Bitcoin users. Another thing
>> I have
>> >> seen on Github for bitcoin.org is how some the maintainers change
>> the rules
>> >> on the fly. Sometimes they say a proposal had no objections so it is
>> >> approved. Other times they say a proposal has no support so it is
>> rejected.
>> > Ok, I misunderstood.
>> > Well, the fact is that the number of capable reviewers is quite small.
>> > If more companies hired and trained more developers to become bitcoin
>> > core developers that situation could change, but that's where we are
>> > now.
>> >
>> >> You are also trying to say that the core developers actually have
>> little
>> >> influence and are not "deciders" because anyone can fork the code.
>> That has
>> >> already been discussed at length and such an argument is faulty
>> because
>> >> there is a constraint that your software is incompatible with
>> everyone else.
>> > Only if you change the consensus rules (which are, in fact, a
>> > relatively small part of the code).
>> > Mike mantains Bitcoin XT and that's fine, Peter Todd maintains patches
>> > with the replace by fee policy, libbitcoin also changes many
>> > non-consensus things, there's code written in other languages...
>> > There's multiple counter-examples to your claim of that argument
>> being faulty.
>> > Seriously, forking the project is just one click. You should try it
>> > out like at least 9627 other people have done.
>> > >From there, you can pay your own developers (if you don't know how to
>> > code yourself) and maybe they're also fine being insulted by you as
>> > part of the job.
>> > What you still can't do is unilaterally change the consensus rules of
>> > a running p2p consensus system, because you cannot force the current
>> > users to run any software they don't want to run.
>> >
>> >> The issue is that there is no way right now to change the
>> consensus rules
>> >> except to go through the core maintainer unless you get everybody
>> on the
>> >> network to switch to your fork. People who keep repeating that the
>> software
>> >> development is "decentralized because you fork the code" without
>> explaining
>> >> the constraints are just cultists.
>> > Please, stop the cultist crap. Maybe insulting people like that is how
>> > you got people to call you a troll.
>> > But, yes, you are right: there's no known mechanism for safely
>> > deploying controversial changes to the consensus rules
>> >
>> >> The discussion has nothing to do with who has the position now and
>> I never
>> >> said he has "control over the consensus rules." The maintainer has
>> a very
>> >> large influence way beyond anyone else. As for your claim that I want
>> >> someone hurt because I am explaining the process, that is
>> ridiculous. If
>> >> the Core maintainers did not have significant influence to change the
>> >> consensus rules then everybody would not be spending all this time
>> lobbying
>> >> them to have them changed.
>> > Well, if you don't think he has control over the consensus rules we're
>> > advancing.
>> > I think that was implied from some of your previous claims. He is no
>> > "decider" on consensus changes.
>> > Insisting on it can indeed get him hurt, so I'm happy that you're
>> > taking that back (or clarifying that really wasn't your position).
>> > Influence is very relative and not only core devs have "influence".
>> > Maybe Andreas Antonopolous has more "influence" than I have because he
>> > is a more public figure?
>> > Well, that's fine I think. I don't see the point in discussing who has
>> > how much influence.
>> >
>> >> The outside influences and stake of the developer is a relevant
>> topic. The
>> >> same types of things are discussed on this list all the time in
>> the context
>> >> of miners, users, merchants, and exchanges. Again, the developers
>> try to
>> >> place themselves on some kind of pedestal where they are the
>> protectors and
>> >> pure and everyone else (miners, users, merchants) are abusers,
>> spammers,
>> >> attackers, scammers, cheaters, etc. It is Garzik who voluntarily
>> made an
>> >> issue of how many bitcoins he holds and he made that issue in the
>> same place
>> >> where he announces many of the technical issues. It is very
>> relevant that
>> >> he has a minimal stake in Bitcoin holdings yet he goes around
>> making major
>> >> decisions about Bitcoin and trying to dictate who is allowed to
>> participate
>> >> in discussions. If a core developer has minimal stake in Bitcoin
>> yet has
>> >> major veto power over code change that is a problem.
>> > Please, don't generalize. I don't think I put myself in any kind of
>> pedestal.
>> > That is insulting to me and many others (you may not even know and
>> > you're insulting them).
>> > And I think my Bitcoin holdings are completely irrelevant when judging
>> > my contributions to the software: either they're good or not, and who
>> > I am or how many Bitcoins I have at any given time shouldn't matter.
>> > Again, nobody forces you to use our software, as said there's
>> > alternatives (including forking the project right now).
>> >
>> >> You are correct that you cannot give power to any person over the
>> Internet
>> >> which is why some kind of process needs to be developed that does not
>> >> involve trying to convince one person to make the changes or a
>> system that
>> >> depends on unwritten, ever-changing rules maintained by a handful
>> of people.
>> > Well, for now the process we have is seeking consensus, and although
>> > our definition of "uncontroversial" is very vague, I think it is quite
>> > obvious when a proposed change is not "uncontroversial" (like in the
>> > block size debate).
>> > It seems to me that any other "formal process" would imply
>> > centralization in the decision making of the consensus rules (and from
>> > there you only have to corrupt that centralized organization to
>> > destroy Bitcoin).
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------090408090002010502020600
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I really don't know who has power to do
what behind the scenes. From what i understand, if push comes to
shove, it is under the ultimate control of one person who can
revoke commit privileges. Maybe I am wrong about that but the
point is most people don't know for sure.<br>
<br>
You are correct about the people having the choice to download but
the influence of the official release is way beyond the influence
of any forked release. What that means in the real world is an
open question and would be different depending upon the specific
circumstances and difficult to predict. It is significant power
to have control over the official release at the present time. If
they did not have significant power people would not spend
significant efforts lobbying them to make changes. Any new
developers hired by companies will do so because they can
influence over the official release since that is the only
incentive.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that this block size fork is only the beginning of
the issues that will arise over the coming years. Whatever powers
the core maintainers have it is going to be exploited one way or
another as time goes on. Maybe there are enough feedback
mechanisms to protect against that, I don't really know. <br>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/28/2015 3:05 PM, Patrick Murck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:etPan.5590456f.61df0e2.23f7@Patricks-MacBook-Pro-2.local"
type="cite">
<style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Wladimir has
no more or less “power” to push change to the Bitcoin Core
codebase than any other person with commit privileges to the
GitHub repo. If I’m not mistaken there are 7 people with commit
privileges and five of them are active. If Wladimir committed a
change it could be reverted by any of the others. This is by
design and ensures that changes will have reached some level of
technical consensus before they are merged, among other things.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Furthermore
even assuming the Core Maintainer commits a change to Bitcoin
Core (that isn’t reverted and that gets packaged up into the
next code release) that still doesn’t push a change to the
bitcoin network. There is no auto-update on Bitcoin Core so
individuals and companies running Bitcoin Core software have to
choose to upgrade. Further still, developers that maintain
alternative implementations would have to decide to merge those
changes to the codebase they are indepently maintaining (and
their users would need to update, etc.).</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">I understand
why it might *seem* to be the case that the Core Maintainer is
empowered to make changes to "teh Bitcoin" but the reality is
that the Core Maintainer role is really about cat herding and
project management of Bitcoin Core the open-source software
project and not the bitcoin network. We’re lucky Wladimir has
agreed to take on so much of the scut work to keep the project
moving forward.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">The process
might get ugly and inefficient but that’s the cost of having no
wizard behind the curtain.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">-pm</div>
<br>
<div id="bloop_sign_1435509432272669184" class="bloop_sign"><span
style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px"></span>-- <br>
Patrick Murck<br>
</div>
<br>
<p class="airmail_on" style="color:#000;">On June 28, 2015 at
9:23:47 AM, Milly Bitcoin (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info">milly@bitcoins.info</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span>
<div>
<div>The core maintainer has always been in control of the
consensus rules. <br>
Satoshi came up with the rules and put them in there.
Since then any <br>
changes to any part of the code go through the core
maintainer. It <br>
looks to me as if people are saying it somehow changed
along the way <br>
because they don't want to hurt people's feeling, upset
up, get them to <br>
quit, etc. Sure there are checks and balances and people
don't have to <br>
use the main code base but if they change the consensus
rules they are <br>
incompatible.<br>
<br>
The notion that because people can download different
rules and run them <br>
is interesting from a theoretical perspective but that is
constrained by <br>
the network effect. I can say the US government is not the
"decider" of <br>
laws because I can vote them out, recall them, challenge
things in <br>
court, or secede and start my own country. You can also
say the <br>
judge/jury in a criminal court case is not a "decider"
because the <br>
president can always issue a pardon. But those points are
generally not <br>
useful in a practical sense.<br>
<br>
The issue about the developers is the tremendous influence
they have to <br>
veto any changes. I don't have veto power yet I have more
bitcoins than <br>
garzik says he has. The whole Bitcoin software development
system is <br>
subject to attack from just a couple of people who have
this veto <br>
power. With all the crying and moaning about
centralization on this <br>
list I would think that would be a concern.<br>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/28/2015 11:35 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info"><milly@bitcoins.info></a> wrote:<br>
>> I never said something was approved by garzik
added something after it was<br>
>> opposed. What I said was a proposal was made and
4 people commented on the<br>
>> Github. He then tweeted there was near universal
approval before most<br>
>> people even heard about the subject. It was not
controversial but i was<br>
>> pointing out the arrogance of some of the
developers. He considers the<br>
>> entire universe of Bitcoin stakeholders to be a
very small group of<br>
>> insiders, not the entire universe of Bitcoin
users. Another thing I have<br>
>> seen on Github for bitcoin.org is how some the
maintainers change the rules<br>
>> on the fly. Sometimes they say a proposal had no
objections so it is<br>
>> approved. Other times they say a proposal has no
support so it is rejected.<br>
> Ok, I misunderstood.<br>
> Well, the fact is that the number of capable
reviewers is quite small.<br>
> If more companies hired and trained more developers
to become bitcoin<br>
> core developers that situation could change, but
that's where we are<br>
> now.<br>
><br>
>> You are also trying to say that the core
developers actually have little<br>
>> influence and are not "deciders" because anyone
can fork the code. That has<br>
>> already been discussed at length and such an
argument is faulty because<br>
>> there is a constraint that your software is
incompatible with everyone else.<br>
> Only if you change the consensus rules (which are, in
fact, a<br>
> relatively small part of the code).<br>
> Mike mantains Bitcoin XT and that's fine, Peter Todd
maintains patches<br>
> with the replace by fee policy, libbitcoin also
changes many<br>
> non-consensus things, there's code written in other
languages...<br>
> There's multiple counter-examples to your claim of
that argument being faulty.<br>
> Seriously, forking the project is just one click. You
should try it<br>
> out like at least 9627 other people have done.<br>
> >From there, you can pay your own developers (if
you don't know how to<br>
> code yourself) and maybe they're also fine being
insulted by you as<br>
> part of the job.<br>
> What you still can't do is unilaterally change the
consensus rules of<br>
> a running p2p consensus system, because you cannot
force the current<br>
> users to run any software they don't want to run.<br>
><br>
>> The issue is that there is no way right now to
change the consensus rules<br>
>> except to go through the core maintainer unless
you get everybody on the<br>
>> network to switch to your fork. People who keep
repeating that the software<br>
>> development is "decentralized because you fork
the code" without explaining<br>
>> the constraints are just cultists.<br>
> Please, stop the cultist crap. Maybe insulting people
like that is how<br>
> you got people to call you a troll.<br>
> But, yes, you are right: there's no known mechanism
for safely<br>
> deploying controversial changes to the consensus
rules<br>
><br>
>> The discussion has nothing to do with who has the
position now and I never<br>
>> said he has "control over the consensus rules."
The maintainer has a very<br>
>> large influence way beyond anyone else. As for
your claim that I want<br>
>> someone hurt because I am explaining the process,
that is ridiculous. If<br>
>> the Core maintainers did not have significant
influence to change the<br>
>> consensus rules then everybody would not be
spending all this time lobbying<br>
>> them to have them changed.<br>
> Well, if you don't think he has control over the
consensus rules we're<br>
> advancing.<br>
> I think that was implied from some of your previous
claims. He is no<br>
> "decider" on consensus changes.<br>
> Insisting on it can indeed get him hurt, so I'm happy
that you're<br>
> taking that back (or clarifying that really wasn't
your position).<br>
> Influence is very relative and not only core devs
have "influence".<br>
> Maybe Andreas Antonopolous has more "influence" than
I have because he<br>
> is a more public figure?<br>
> Well, that's fine I think. I don't see the point in
discussing who has<br>
> how much influence.<br>
><br>
>> The outside influences and stake of the developer
is a relevant topic. The<br>
>> same types of things are discussed on this list
all the time in the context<br>
>> of miners, users, merchants, and exchanges.
Again, the developers try to<br>
>> place themselves on some kind of pedestal where
they are the protectors and<br>
>> pure and everyone else (miners, users, merchants)
are abusers, spammers,<br>
>> attackers, scammers, cheaters, etc. It is Garzik
who voluntarily made an<br>
>> issue of how many bitcoins he holds and he made
that issue in the same place<br>
>> where he announces many of the technical issues.
It is very relevant that<br>
>> he has a minimal stake in Bitcoin holdings yet he
goes around making major<br>
>> decisions about Bitcoin and trying to dictate who
is allowed to participate<br>
>> in discussions. If a core developer has minimal
stake in Bitcoin yet has<br>
>> major veto power over code change that is a
problem.<br>
> Please, don't generalize. I don't think I put myself
in any kind of pedestal.<br>
> That is insulting to me and many others (you may not
even know and<br>
> you're insulting them).<br>
> And I think my Bitcoin holdings are completely
irrelevant when judging<br>
> my contributions to the software: either they're good
or not, and who<br>
> I am or how many Bitcoins I have at any given time
shouldn't matter.<br>
> Again, nobody forces you to use our software, as said
there's<br>
> alternatives (including forking the project right
now).<br>
><br>
>> You are correct that you cannot give power to any
person over the Internet<br>
>> which is why some kind of process needs to be
developed that does not<br>
>> involve trying to convince one person to make the
changes or a system that<br>
>> depends on unwritten, ever-changing rules
maintained by a handful of people.<br>
> Well, for now the process we have is seeking
consensus, and although<br>
> our definition of "uncontroversial" is very vague, I
think it is quite<br>
> obvious when a proposed change is not
"uncontroversial" (like in the<br>
> block size debate).<br>
> It seems to me that any other "formal process" would
imply<br>
> centralization in the decision making of the
consensus rules (and from<br>
> there you only have to corrupt that centralized
organization to<br>
> destroy Bitcoin).<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090408090002010502020600--
|