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
|
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 3BB48BC6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <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>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
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: <CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com>
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 <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: 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 <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
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">On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info"><milly@bitcoins.info></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes, I understand that it may be difficult to define
"uncontroversial", as I explain in
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Can you provide anything to back your claim?
Note that even if that's true, still, Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules.</pre>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
As for your proclamation<b> </b>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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Russ<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070008000900060300050702--
|
