Patrick Murck [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-06-28 to 2018-02-13
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:40:19

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150628/38f1f487/attachment-0001.html>