📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27
📝 Original message:On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150627/9e573a71/attachment.html>;
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:40:16
in reply to nevent1q…vctc
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:16Event JSON
{
"id": "585a6b40e42dc63370b9b6e32566fc898d2c03fa6edae91206c6c089a3d26264",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152416,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"86db2d35b1586dd8ba77efc5c6c32453c802d19fca2124d50d03546f9c9a2f5b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27\n📝 Original message:On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea Popescu\n\u003e\u003e will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their objection to\n\u003e\u003e Github but the point I am making is that no matter what change you make\n\u003e\u003e someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the developers think that\n\u003e\u003e Github is the only place that matters and that the only opinions that matter\n\u003e\u003e is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think that way which is the reasoning\n\u003e\u003e behind my statement.\n\u003e Yes, I understand that it may be difficult to define\n\u003e \"uncontroversial\", as I explain in\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I have seen things like a Github discussion between 3 or 4 people\n\u003e\u003e and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is near universal approval for\n\u003e\u003e the proposed change as it nobody is allowed to question it. After watching\n\u003e\u003e the github process for a couple years I simply don't trust it because the\n\u003e\u003e developers in charge have a dictatorial style and they shut out many\n\u003e\u003e stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions.\n\u003e Can you provide anything to back your claim?\n\u003e Note that even if that's true, still, Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules.\nI saw this problem first hand when Andreas Antonopolis got into a big \ndispute with some of the core developers over the press contacts. The \ngithub made up their rules as they went along and simply ignored input \nfrom anyone outside their inner circle. Since that time several people \nhave told me they dropped out of participating in the github process. \nThe maintainers deleted some of my messages and I have been told I am \nbanned form github. Further, as you can see on here Jeff Garzik, a guy \nwho claims only to hold a few hundred Bitcoin, told people on this list \nto ignore my messages. There is also the incident where Gavin lambasted \nsomeone for \"hiding behind anonymity\" when the whole project is based on \nan anonymous contributor. I find it interesting that many developers \nwho work on a decentralized system. I don't like the general attitude \nof the developers that they are the protectors of the system and that \neveryone else is trying to exploit or do damage. they often characterize \ndifferent users/businesses/miners as abusers, spammers, people trying to \ngame the system, etc. while they characterize the developers as pure and \ngood. When the issue comes up about authority over the code (which \nincludes the consensus rules) they spout all kinds of nonsense about how \nthey don't have significant control and are not deciders yet they never \npoint to who does decide. If they weren't the deciders then people \nwould not be spending all that time lobbying them. just because there \nare some checks and balances does not mean it is \"decentralized\" or they \nare not deciders.\n\nAs for your proclamation**at Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules, \nthat is simply not true in practice. There is one piece of software \nwith one maintainer. If you want it changed you have to convince that \none person to approve the change.\n\n\u003e\u003e I view the Github system\n\u003e\u003e as the biggest centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest\n\u003e\u003e threat to its continued survival. Anyone can come in and hire a couple core\n\u003e\u003e developers and veto any change they don't want.\n\u003e Well, yes, github is centralized and so it is bitcoin core development.\n\u003e But bitcoin core developers don't decide hardfork changes.\n\u003e So far, softfork changes have been made because they have been\n\u003e considered \"uncontroversial\", not because there's any centralized\n\u003e negotiating table or voting process to decide when to force every user\n\u003e to adapt their software to new consensus rules.\n\u003e\nThe core developers have the biggest influence by far to decide hard \nfork changes. There is no other place to go. While anyone can fork the \ncode someone compare it to the river Thames. if you don't like where \nthe river runs you can dig a new one ... here is a spoon. I can vote in \nelections but that does not mean the US government is \"decentralized.\" \nThe core maintainer has decided on a hard fork change, he has decided \nnot to do it.\n\nIn any case what happened in the past does not matter. What is going to \nhappen now is the question. If nothing happens and everybody sits \naround saying they are not in charge of the consensus rules and nothing \never gets done I see Bitcoin just fading away into oblivion. I am under \nthe impression that at least some of the developers (such as Garzik) \ndon't actually hold that many bitcoins and don't have a large stake in \nthe system yet they have significant control. Anyone can attack the \nsystem by simply hiring a couple core developers and creating the \ngridlock we see now.\n\nRuss\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150627/9e573a71/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "bff4a4cd2f88077219adbb1abce8bf05740dfb74fc89bf4439abe9a161e3a090653e35104e4ae25fd9002f86c40129a38871b53e4a8b5fa8a61e8ddc0b04fd81"
}