Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB48BC6 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:27 +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 0A7D512D for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:50:20 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info> <558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:50:14 -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: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070008000900060300050702" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070008000900060300050702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: >> Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea Popescu >> will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their objection to >> Github but the point I am making is that no matter what change you make >> someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the developers think that >> Github is the only place that matters and that the only opinions that matter >> is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think that way which is the reasoning >> behind my statement. > Yes, I understand that it may be difficult to define > "uncontroversial", as I explain in > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html > >> I have seen things like a Github discussion between 3 or 4 people >> and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is near universal approval for >> the proposed change as it nobody is allowed to question it. After watching >> the github process for a couple years I simply don't trust it because the >> developers in charge have a dictatorial style and they shut out many >> stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions. > Can you provide anything to back your claim? > Note that even if that's true, still, Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules. I saw this problem first hand when Andreas Antonopolis got into a big dispute with some of the core developers over the press contacts. The github made up their rules as they went along and simply ignored input from anyone outside their inner circle. Since that time several people have told me they dropped out of participating in the github process. The maintainers deleted some of my messages and I have been told I am banned form github. Further, as you can see on here Jeff Garzik, a guy who claims only to hold a few hundred Bitcoin, told people on this list to ignore my messages. There is also the incident where Gavin lambasted someone for "hiding behind anonymity" when the whole project is based on an anonymous contributor. I find it interesting that many developers who work on a decentralized system. I don't like the general attitude of the developers that they are the protectors of the system and that everyone else is trying to exploit or do damage. they often characterize different users/businesses/miners as abusers, spammers, people trying to game the system, etc. while they characterize the developers as pure and good. When the issue comes up about authority over the code (which includes the consensus rules) they spout all kinds of nonsense about how they don't have significant control and are not deciders yet they never point to who does decide. If they weren't the deciders then people would not be spending all that time lobbying them. just because there are some checks and balances does not mean it is "decentralized" or they are not deciders. As for your proclamation**at Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules, that is simply not true in practice. There is one piece of software with one maintainer. If you want it changed you have to convince that one person to approve the change. >> I view the Github system >> as the biggest centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest >> threat to its continued survival. Anyone can come in and hire a couple core >> developers and veto any change they don't want. > Well, yes, github is centralized and so it is bitcoin core development. > But bitcoin core developers don't decide hardfork changes. > So far, softfork changes have been made because they have been > considered "uncontroversial", not because there's any centralized > negotiating table or voting process to decide when to force every user > to adapt their software to new consensus rules. > The core developers have the biggest influence by far to decide hard fork changes. There is no other place to go. While anyone can fork the code someone compare it to the river Thames. if you don't like where the river runs you can dig a new one ... here is a spoon. I can vote in elections but that does not mean the US government is "decentralized." The core maintainer has decided on a hard fork change, he has decided not to do it. In any case what happened in the past does not matter. What is going to happen now is the question. If nothing happens and everybody sits around saying they are not in charge of the consensus rules and nothing ever gets done I see Bitcoin just fading away into oblivion. I am under the impression that at least some of the developers (such as Garzik) don't actually hold that many bitcoins and don't have a large stake in the system yet they have significant control. Anyone can attack the system by simply hiring a couple core developers and creating the gridlock we see now. Russ --------------070008000900060300050702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:

Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea Popescu
will oppose just about any change.  Maybe they don't post their objection to
Github but the point I am making is that no matter what change you make
someone, somewhere will be against it.  Some of the developers think that
Github is the only place that matters and that the only opinions that matter
is a tiny group of insiders.  I don't think that way which is the reasoning
behind my statement.

Yes, I understand that it may be difficult to define
"uncontroversial", as I explain in
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html


I have seen things like a Github discussion between 3 or 4 people
and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is near universal approval for
the proposed change as it nobody is allowed to question it.  After watching
the github process for a couple years I simply don't trust it because the
developers in charge have a dictatorial style and they shut out many
stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions.

Can you provide anything to back your claim?
Note that even if that's true, still, Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules.
I saw this problem first hand when Andreas Antonopolis got into a big dispute with some of the core developers over the press contacts.  The github made up their rules as they went along and simply ignored input from anyone outside their inner circle.  Since that time several people have told me they dropped out of participating in the github process.  The maintainers deleted some of my messages and I have been told I am banned form github.  Further, as you can see on here Jeff Garzik, a guy who claims only to hold a few hundred Bitcoin, told people on this list to ignore my messages.  There is also the incident where Gavin lambasted someone for "hiding behind anonymity" when the whole project is based on an anonymous contributor.  I find it interesting that many developers who work on a decentralized system.  I don't like the general attitude of the developers that they are the protectors of the system and that everyone else is trying to exploit or do damage.  they often characterize different users/businesses/miners as abusers, spammers, people trying to game the system, etc. while they characterize the developers as pure and good.  When the issue comes up about authority over the code (which includes the consensus rules) they spout all kinds of nonsense about how they don't have significant control and are not deciders yet they never point to who does decide.  If they weren't the deciders then people would not be spending all that time lobbying them.  just because there are some checks and balances does not mean it is "decentralized" or they are not deciders.

As for your proclamation at Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules, that is simply not true in practice.  There is one piece of software with one maintainer.  If you want it changed you have to convince that one person to approve the change. 

I view the Github system
as the biggest centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest
threat to its continued survival.  Anyone can come in and hire a couple core
developers and veto any change they don't want.

Well, yes, github is centralized and so it is bitcoin core development.
But bitcoin core developers don't decide hardfork changes.
So far, softfork changes have been made because they have been
considered "uncontroversial", not because there's any centralized
negotiating table or voting process to decide when to force every user
to adapt their software to new consensus rules.
The core developers have the biggest influence by far to decide hard fork changes.  There is no other place to go.  While anyone can fork the code someone compare it to the river Thames.  if you don't like where the river runs you can dig a new one ... here is a spoon.  I can vote in elections but that does not mean the US government is "decentralized."  The core maintainer has decided on a hard fork change, he has decided not to do it. 

In any case what happened in the past does not matter.  What is going to happen now is the question.  If nothing happens and everybody sits around saying they are not in charge of the consensus rules and nothing ever gets done I see Bitcoin just fading away into oblivion.  I am under the impression that at least some of the developers (such as Garzik) don't actually hold that many bitcoins and don't have a large stake in the system yet they have significant control.  Anyone can attack the system by simply hiring a couple core developers and creating the gridlock we see now.

Russ
--------------070008000900060300050702--