From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:50:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4875 bytes --]
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
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6044 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-27 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-25 3:00 Raystonn
2015-06-25 3:19 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-26 11:13 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-26 12:34 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-27 11:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 12:50 ` Milly Bitcoin [this message]
2015-06-28 12:30 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 13:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 15:35 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 16:23 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 19:05 ` Patrick Murck
2015-06-28 20:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:16 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-28 20:26 ` Ricardo Filipe
2015-06-28 21:00 ` Adam Back
2015-06-29 0:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-29 0:23 ` Andrew Lapp
2015-06-29 1:11 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 23:52 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:21 ` NxtChg
2015-06-25 19:03 ` Tom Harding
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-25 3:53 Raystonn
2015-06-25 0:18 Raystonn
2015-06-24 23:41 Raystonn
2015-06-24 23:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 0:11 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-25 0:21 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 0:07 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 1:50 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 2:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-25 2:34 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 5:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 5:41 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 6:06 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 6:15 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 6:16 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-25 6:27 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 7:51 ` cipher anthem
2015-06-25 10:09 ` nxtchg
2015-06-25 12:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 20:05 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-26 0:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-01 22:34 ` odinn
2015-06-25 3:42 ` Gareth Williams
2015-06-25 4:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 13:36 ` s7r
2015-06-25 13:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-25 13:51 ` s7r
2015-06-25 14:08 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 17:29 ` Milly Bitcoin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info \
--to=milly@bitcoins$(echo .)info \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox