Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE]

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-06-18 to 2015-10-06
💬 Posted a total of 90 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development, bitcoin-dev, xxxx, BIP/Draft, Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Public Key

npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspk2wefm5pu8hqg703md9uftygwsrm63c2p4cxpem032e8lh2hu5qptudr5

Author Public Key

npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:42:18

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02
📝 Original message:> Restarting the mining with a new algorithm as a reaction and defence against
> centralised hoarding of mining ASICs (as we are seeing now), would be
> acceptable. It would not necessarily be contentions *to the economy*, as such
> hoarding-miners do not participate in the economy in any meaningful way (they
> do not accept payments from other bitcoin users).
>
> Luke
I don't see any basis for these claims. Under this theory developers
also do not "participate in the economy" either. These are questions
for economists and not developers.
Maybe "we" could change the language of Core to prevent the
centralization of developers? Maybe switch over to FORTRAN? lol
Russ

2023-06-07 17:41:54

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30
📝 Original message:On 9/30/2015 3:16 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I've also got a competition where the object is to build a spaceship
> using only a watermelon, two donkeys, some duct tape, and a fire hydrant.
There are many people interested in starting new services and who are
interested in hiring developers or at least partnering with them. This
is an important part of the ecosystem. I have noticed both here and on
Reddit that when someone proposes an idea it goes one of two ways:
either there is a large amount of interest if the person is well known
or liked or; the person is accused of being a spammer or made fun of if
they are not well known or liked. All this does is make the developers
look like a small fickle group who actively promote Bitcoin as a an
insiders' club (much like the Fed). There should probably be a list
where people can actively discuss proposed or ongoing projects and look
for developers to hire.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:41:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-29
📝 Original message:> Since 2011 and bitcoin-development, the list was always intended to
> focus on the highly technical bits of the core software, and avoid
> wandering into never-ending philosophical discussions. Example:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2011-June/thread.html
What happened years ago is not really relevant as Bitcoin has changed
and the stakeholders have expanded. What is relevant is the actual
description. Whatever you want to discuss it should be clearly
described when people sign up.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:40:38

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:> therefore ascribing godlike and limitless powers to a government is
> again the view of either a shill or someone untutored in history.
Since nobody ever ascribed "godlike and limitless powers to a
government" on this list your comment has no bearing on anything
discussed here. I am sure the whole world, except for a few
underemployed gamers who discovered Bitcoin, are all untutored in history.
As for this thread, the question was how/when is a Bitcoin development
issue considered "settled?"
Russ

2023-06-07 17:40:38

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:Threat models can be developed for things like threats from governments.
The idea in developing a model is to put in the context of other
possible threats. For example, someone with a few million to burn can
easily crash the exchange rate or buy a couple core developers much
easier and cheaper than doing a 51% attack. These attacks can be done
by governments and non-governments alike. The people who consider
threats from government and think everyone associated with Bitcoin is
somehow "pure" are irrational cultists who have no business discussing
threat models in the first place.
Russ
On 9/20/2015 5:10 PM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model is either a shill or an idiot.
>
> You meant to say "threat". This is what threat model is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model
>
> Nobody here discounts governments as a threat.
>
> As to the "proper threat model", you can't construct one since your attacker is essentially unbounded.
>
> For example, any large government could easily obtain 51% of hash power and then only accept transactions from "certified services".
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 17:40:36

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:>Some of us have also been actively working towards developing
> a more modular, layered architecture and better implementations that
> will afford greater decentralization in software development with less
> need for critical code reviews, less pushback from downstream developers
> who must continuously rebase, a better process for building consensus in
> the community, and simpler app migration.
It sounds more efficient but it is not clear to me that it would change
the level of centralization of how the final decisions are made.
One threat to Bintcoin involves incentive for companies to hire
developers. The only reason is to change (or not change) Bitcoin Core
so it is beneficial to their interests. I am not sure anything can be
done about that risk but it needs to be understood and considered and
not just ignored.
> We need to increase the basic infrastructure nodes by a factor much
> larger than 2 or 3...more like 100 or 1000...and it's entirely doable
> with properly aligned incentives.
I assume that would mean fees that hike transaction fees and make
Bitcoin more expensive?
Russ

2023-06-07 17:40:34

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20
📝 Original message:Your reply has nothing to do with my comment. It looks like you just go
around posting wing nut stuff without regard to what is being discussed.
A proper threat model considers all possible threats and looks at the
probability of each.
Obviously from your comment you have no experience in threat models and
limited education in general.
Russ
On 9/20/2015 4:23 PM, Steven Pine wrote:
> It's amazing how foolish some people are to continue trusting
> governments especially in light of recent history: a seemingly endless,
> Orwellian 'war on terror', multiple regional conflicts often justified
> by fake evidence, wholesale disregard of law and basic human covenants
> such as do not torture, ubiquitous and secret global surveillance.
>
> Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model is
> either a shill or an idiot.
>
> On Sep 20, 2015 12:34 PM, "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Until this is settled, Bitcoin has no clear direction and
> developers cannot make effective decisions:
>
>
> How exactly do things set "settled" in this environment?
>
> People looking at Bitcoin think a small group of developers and
> miners "control" these decisions. Not sure if "control" is the
> right word but that is the perception.
>
> Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 17:39:02

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
> draft BIP:
No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it
in the first place.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a
block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get
copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge
a fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at
their web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who
distributes it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the
blockchain). A copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some
other purpose of putting a license on intellectual property?
Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners
or users to use any specific license that you come up with?
There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any
kind of sense:
"In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for
databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea
what this means or what court cases you are referring to.
"The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own
intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a
notice that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the
blockchain data? You are not that entity and neither are the
developers. If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with
their license.
"[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through
cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly
not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once
again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot
dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners
publishing their transaction data.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:39:02

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be
> covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining
> permissions for a change to be considered effective.
>
> We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and
> there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new
> terms. While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to
> what is an otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to
> be anyone who could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this
> may not be an issue. It merits further investigation.
Like I said, you need to talk to a lawyer. What exactly would be the
purpose of any license? How can someone be a "beneficiary" to a license
when you can't even explain who holds the license to begin with? How do
they "benefit?" I don't see any purpose to putting a license on the
Core software or the blockchain because nobody can explain who actually
holds the license and there is no mechanism to enforce any license and
there is no revenue to be shared. The whole discussion makes no sense.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:39:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
> client software.
I suggest talking to a lawyer first. To have a license you need an
entity that holds the license. What entity actually holds the MIT
license? There is a copyright notice on the Core Client that claims the
license is held by the developers. It that the main core developers,
anyone who has ever submitted an accepted pull request, or something
else? I don't think there is any kind of valid license on the software
to begin with. Just posting a notice does not make it true just like
all those "terms of use" web notices are generally not valid contracts
(see "click wrap vs. "browser wrap" discussions).
What entity would actually hold a "blockchain license" and who decides
who would hold the license? If the developers decide there should be a
license that means the developers own the blockchain and I don't think
that is consistent with what is going on here.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:38:49

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-31
📝 Original message:> I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year,
>
> After hours of phone calls and messaging AT&T finally told me the truth
> of what was going on,
I went through this Comcast involving another port. When they blocked
the port I asked them the reason (I referenced their privacy policy that
they are supposed to disclose my account info to me). they told me it
didn't matter what their privacy policy said, they weren't going to tell
me. I then showed up in federal court and testified as to what they
were doing. It was a class action lawsuit against them for people who
tried to get refunds over bandwidth throttling and I was one of members
of the class.
In any event the solution for me was to get a business account rather
than a residential account. You get a gateway that you can configure
yourself and you can turn off the firewall. As far as I can tell no
ports are blocked like residential accounts. The cost was an extra
$10/month (unless you get other options like fixed IP and/or increased
bandwidth). maybe you can get the data from bitnodes.io to see if any
ISP is blocking nodes. Maybe stats could be posted based on ISP. I
have been running a node through that account for awhile now
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/70.90.2.18-8333/
Russ

2023-06-07 17:38:19

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-27
📝 Original message:> So where is the solution? What to do?
AML-KYC is mostly something that sits on top of the Bitcoin protocol.
Take Coinase, inc. as an example. They check bank accounts before they
open your account and they link your Bitcoin address to your account in
their database. Then they ask for an explanation of why you are using
the account. Then they track your coins to a certain extent once you
actually buy Bitcoins. None of these activities are directly involving
the protocol or would require changes to the Bitcoin system.
What you can do is develop standards for using Bitcoin and entities that
need to follow AML-KYC can choose to follow those standards if they want
when they conduct business using Bitcoin. You can add a small amount of
extraneous data to transactions that could show you followed some
AML-KYC procedure. If you did that you could have a "white list" of
complaint transactions rather than a "black list" of non-compliant
transactions as you seem to be proposing. I am not sure how you would
actually do something like that or how it would work but it is an
interesting concept (not necessarily good, but interesting).
Russ

2023-06-07 17:36:21

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20
📝 Original message:> For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
>
> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
> (which is currently pretty bad).
Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't you
work on a decentralization metric which you can point to? (instead of
trying to claim people don't understand things which is clearly not the
case, You are just attacking people you don't agree with).
Russ

2023-06-07 17:35:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20
📝 Original message:> Security is provided via POW.
POW is only one aspect of security and that algorithm was created by
developers and adopted by miners. Developers provide security by
creating an algorithm and miners provide security by adopting it. If
the developers and miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin
will be insecure. POW is not some outside force.
The security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that
involve a number of factors that are the result of actions by humans.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:35:13

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15
📝 Original message:> So if you want a user vote, that's an issue that'd have to be tackled:
> the people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have
> vowed to censor any program that doesn't slavishly follow 51%+ hash
> power. That attempt to control the conversation is certainly not
> libertarian or democratic in nature, but there you go.
These types of actions are immediately apparent to anyone who looks at
the Bitcoin ecosystem (Bitcoin.org, Githib, Wiki, bitcointalk, etc.) and
were readily apparent long before any block size debate. It is almost a
taboo subject and anyone who raises these types of issues is immediately
labeled as a "troll." These are the people who used to run around
saying that Bitcoin development is "decentralized" because anyone can
fork the code and now many of the same people claim a fork will destroy
everything.
The problem is that a small group of highly irrational and inexperienced
people (outside of the small and unusual Bitcoin ecosystem) have control
over the majority of the resources. I think over time the problem will
even itself out but currently it is an obstacle in moving Bitcoin forward.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:34:24

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message:> I think the point "you don't need to trust anyone to use Bitcoin" remains.
I don't think that is a true statement. Users need to trust the mining
system is working as intended. Users also need to trust the developers
to a certain extent. It is about levels of trust and how much you need
to trust these things. When someone says something is "trustless" or
"decentralized" they are really saying that it reaches some sort of
"acceptable" level in their mind to "brand" it that way.
Russ

2023-06-07 17:34:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08
📝 Original message:> Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function.
Many Bitcoiners have a rather unusual notion of trust. While many state
the established financial systems cannot be trusted they imply that many
within the Bitcoin world need to be trusted. There are some very
irresponsible and unusual people who have authority to do things in the
Bitcoin world such as manage the Wiki, the Github repository, and are
given an emergency alert key. Some of these people are only known by
some sort of screen name. If anyone questions any of these processes
they are chastised and labeled a "troll". For instance, anyone who
questioned Mt. Gox back in 2013 was labeled a "buttcoiner" or something
similar. So I would say many people, including many on this list, don't
fully understand the claims they are making about the "truslessness" of
Bitcoin.
>Lightning doesn't require explicit trust,
There seems to be semantic issues with describing trust and the
lightning network. You need to trust the other party during the
transactions in the channel for it to work. Yes there is way to cash
out if the other party does not cooperate but that is not the same thing
as saying it is trustless. Many people are confused about this part of
decentralization where the network has to take time to reach consensus.
Some people think that you can use some kind of technological trick to
avoid this lag time and still have a completely trustless system. It is
a tradeoff.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:47:20

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20
📝 Original message:> The same with -XT, nobody should be able to affect the entire bitcoin
> ecosystem regardless how many miners or bitcoin companies you can lobby.
> If this is possible, then Bitcoin is not as secure as we thought.
Bitcoin is only as secure as the developers, users, and miners allow it
to be. If you can get the majority of developers, users, and miners to
do insecure things then Bitcoin will be insecure.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:47:12

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15
📝 Original message:> Baseless accusations also have no place on this mailing list. They are
> unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building process we all
> seek to engage in.
I didn't see any baseless accusations in the message. I saw a
discussion of possible conflicts of interest. Your reply seems to
indicate that somehow conflicts of interest don't exist with the
developers or that the developers are somehow above everyone else. The
fact is the developers on this list discuss conflicts of interest all
the time as it relates to things like mining. Conflicts of interest are
going to be a regular part of Bitcoin development so you should start
getting used it because it is only going to increase as the value increases.
It is your messages attacking people who raise legitimate issues that is
poisonous. It tries to prevent discussions of the risks associated with
the code development. It creates an atmosphere where people are
blackballed if they discuss these issues. This is what happens in
religions all the time and it is time to start treating Bitcoin like the
technology that it is rather than some cult religion.
For all I know is that a hard fork controversy is going to cause the
price to drop temporarily so for all I know this is a scheme to buy some
cheap coins just like when hackers used to attack exchanges and
bitcointalk at the same time to get the price to drop. (I don't think
it is a scheme to do that but such a scheme is certainly possible in the
future and things like that should be expected to happen).
Russ

- reply

- reply

- reply

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04
📝 Original message:>For those wishing to do actual research, esp. people such as profs mentoring students, ...
>But keep in mind that you're wading into a highly politically charged research field
>with billions hanging on the blocksize limit; understand that people aren't happy when
>flawed papers end up on reddit being used to promote bad ideas. You'd be wise to run future
>work past experts in the field prior to publishing widely if you dislike heated controversy.
> Or, I could just point out the obvious rather than try to be polite: you know exactly why
>the above makes no sense as a reply to this thread and are deliberately lying.
>If the situation is the latter, your conduct is toxic to the development mailing list
>discussion, not to mention a waste of all our time, and you should leave.
Researchers should also keep in mind that some of developers are
immature and have limited knowledge or experience beyond their Bitcoin
expertise ("Idiot-savants"). Others want to be in "charge" of
drama-laced posts on reddit and they get upset if others do the same
things.
In any case these rants and attacks by Todd and Garzik should be posted
on their personal blogs or reddit instead of this list.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:43:54

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31
📝 Original message:I have been looking up ways to measure decentralization at the moment.
There are some good discussions as they relate to Bitcoin but they are
scattered in different places. I just took over BitcoinStandards.com so
i thought about using that site to post stuff.
Russ
On 7/30/2015 9:25 PM, Raystonn wrote:
> Russ, do you have time to get started on your list? It would add value.
>
> On 30 Jul 2015 5:15 pm, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a
> process:
>
> -A list of metrics
> -A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now.
> -Mitigation strategies for each risk.
> -A set of goals.
> -A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to
> achieve that goal.
>
> Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk
> analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline.
>
> For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of
> a road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics
> would be a decentralization metric. (A framework for a
> decentralization
> metric is at
> http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf).
>
> Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric.
>
> Russ

2023-06-07 15:42:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-15
📝 Original message:> (note how Chainalysis's actions were
> described(1) as a sybil attack by multiple Bitcoin devs, including
> Gregory Maxwell, Wladimir van der Laan, and myself)
As far as I know none of those people are security experts nor do they
engage in systematic risk and threat analysis. Simply because they are
experts in Bitcoin development does not make them expert in other areas.
Many of those involved in Bitcoin think that because they know Bitcoin
that they somehow have become experts in other areas. That is one
reason why so many Bitcoin companies have been hacked.
An "attack" according to ISO/IEC 27000 "is any attempt to destroy,
expose, alter, disable, steal or gain unauthorized access to or make
unauthorized use of an asset." The situation you are describing is not
an "attack," they are providing a service. Satoshi Dice is also not
"spam," it is again providing a service within the rules set forth in
the software. The people going around claiming these are "spam" and
"attacks" spend too much time of Reddit or they have an ulterior motive.
In any case these baseless accusations and arguments waste inordinate
amounts of time.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:42:06

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-14
📝 Original message:> If your email account is hacked and someone else gets a certificate in
> your name, you'd be unable to *know* about it, because they would use a
> different CA.
Maybe I am confused but I thought you are using DNSSEC to sign the zones
so only the domain owner could issue certificates for a zone (or
corresponding email address). If you have "example.com" the domain
owner of the domain would sign zone "joe.example.com" which can
correspond to the "joe at example.com" email address. Under this scenario
you would only have one CA per domain.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:41:20

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-30
📝 Original message:>"Decentralization" is a popular buzzword these days, but how about
stating the problem description in a way that is more precise and
accurate? One of Bitcoin's differentiating properties is that it
prevents double spending without using a trusted third party.
I have been researching how it can be defined and measured (at least up
to a certain point). Here is a paper on measuring decentralization of
government functions:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/defin.pdf.
Not exactly the same thing as being discussed here but the paper gives a
framework of how decentralization metrics could be defined in a somewhat
standard way.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:40:28

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:> Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can
> scale.
>
> People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future
> projections under the proposal of "economic change through inaction."
>
> There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee
> pressure. And what happens then?
It is not clear he is proposing "inaction." I am not sure what he is
proposing other than being against knee-jerk reactions. He has also
said he doesn't want to take on the responsibility of deciding on
whether to approve hard fork changes which is understandable considering
all the other things he is doing. Such a responsibility is probably too
much of a burden to put on any one individual no matter who it is. The
next step is to come up with a process to handle proposed hard-fork
changes other than just to ask the Core maintainer to do it.
Russ

2023-06-07 15:40:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:That sounds like a good idea except I have been told by the powers that
be that I am not allowed to post to Github. Any Bip proposal is
supposed to be vetted on the mailing list first.
My suggestion has been to continue development of the risk analysis
started by the Bitcoin Foundation found at
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bitcoin-Risk-Management-Study-Spring-2014.pdf.
The idea is to create a living document of risks and mitigations as well
as a decentralization metric. When a change is proposed it is measured
against these risks and metrics in a somewhat standard fashion.
If someone wants to post something like that to Github I can work on
it. I am familiar with the process as I worked on something similar for
many years for the US FAA. I worked in information security for large
aviation systems in the R&D stage applying the NIST 800-series documents
to the process (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html).
Russ
On 6/28/2015 8:23 PM, Andrew Lapp wrote:
> Your discussion is taking up a lot of room in my inbox and it doesn't
> seem like either side is getting through to the other. Perhaps you
> could create a document outlining all the failure modes possible due
> to the current system, the current systems security assumptions and
> possible solutions. Now it seems this is just a semantic debate and
> would probably be better solved with you writing a BIP and having that
> reviewed and critiqued.
>
> -Andrew Lapp
>
> On 06/28/2015 08:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin wrote:
>> The concern with that is that any FAQ will be developed by the same
>> small group that controls the github now so they will spin it in an
>> unrealistic way. You see the problem now with the Bitcoin wiki.
>> While the wiki has some valuable information, it also has a number of
>> incorrect and cult-like claims about how Bitcoin works. Tim Swanson
>> has made some good videos that describe some of the misinformation
>> that often gets repeated on the Wiki and other places.
>>
>> I had suggested the info on the Wiki be reevaluated piece-by-piece
>> and moved to Bitcoin.org but the developers didn't like that.
>> Attempts to edit the Wiki often leads to the articles being defaced
>> by the maintainers so that is a waste of time.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/28/2015 5:00 PM, Adam Back wrote:
>>> I think we need a second mailing list: bitcoin-process for people to
>>> learn about bitcoin process.
>>>
>>> And someone to write a FAQ on it's sign up page so people interested
>>> could at least discuss from a starting point of understanding how and
>>> why it works the way it does!
>>>
>>> Adam
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 15:40:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:Nobody has pointed out I am "wrong," it is just semantics about the term
"decider" and I am just essentially repeating things said by others.
As for the term "troll," that is used primarily used by teenagers to
deal with people they don't agree with. Unfortunately the developers
are often 20-something kids like yourself who have never dealt with a
large system of diverse stakeholders or anything outside of their
specific technical areas.
As for your claim that I accused someone of something, I don't know what
you are talking about. If you don't like my messages then don't read
them. It looks to me like you don't like the idea of the developers
being questioned about their authority which is understandable as one of
the people involved in Blocksteam because you want the system to stay
the way it is.
If you want to moderate the list the go ahead, I can't stop you but I am
not going to listen to anyone who uses the term "troll."
Russ
On 6/28/2015 4:16 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>
> Milly you are absolutely wrong as has been pointed out by numerous
> people numerous times. Your idea of how bitcoin development decision
> making works is demonstrably false. Please stop filling our inboxes
> with trolling accusations, or else this will have to become a
> moderated list. And no one wants that.
>
> On Jun 28, 2015 1:11 PM, "Milly Bitcoin" <milly at bitcoins.info
> <mailto:milly at bitcoins.info>> wrote:
>
> I really don't know who has power to do what behind the scenes.
> From what i understand, if push comes to shove, it is under the
> ultimate control of one person who can revoke commit privileges.
> Maybe I am wrong about that but the point is most people don't
> know for sure.
>
> You are correct about the people having the choice to download but
> the influence of the official release is way beyond the influence
> of any forked release. What that means in the real world is an
> open question and would be different depending upon the specific
> circumstances and difficult to predict. It is significant power
> to have control over the official release at the present time. If
> they did not have significant power people would not spend
> significant efforts lobbying them to make changes. Any new
> developers hired by companies will do so because they can
> influence over the official release since that is the only incentive.
>
> It seems to me that this block size fork is only the beginning of
> the issues that will arise over the coming years. Whatever powers
> the core maintainers have it is going to be exploited one way or
> another as time goes on. Maybe there are enough feedback
> mechanisms to protect against that, I don't really know.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/28/2015 3:05 PM, Patrick Murck wrote:
>> 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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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/a359d593/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 15:40:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:The concern with that is that any FAQ will be developed by the same
small group that controls the github now so they will spin it in an
unrealistic way. You see the problem now with the Bitcoin wiki. While
the wiki has some valuable information, it also has a number of
incorrect and cult-like claims about how Bitcoin works. Tim Swanson has
made some good videos that describe some of the misinformation that
often gets repeated on the Wiki and other places.
I had suggested the info on the Wiki be reevaluated piece-by-piece and
moved to Bitcoin.org but the developers didn't like that. Attempts to
edit the Wiki often leads to the articles being defaced by the
maintainers so that is a waste of time.
Russ
On 6/28/2015 5:00 PM, Adam Back wrote:
> I think we need a second mailing list: bitcoin-process for people to
> learn about bitcoin process.
>
> And someone to write a FAQ on it's sign up page so people interested
> could at least discuss from a starting point of understanding how and
> why it works the way it does!
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 15:40:19

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:I really don't know who has power to do what behind the scenes. From
what i understand, if push comes to shove, it is under the ultimate
control of one person who can revoke commit privileges. Maybe I am
wrong about that but the point is most people don't know for sure.
You are correct about the people having the choice to download but the
influence of the official release is way beyond the influence of any
forked release. What that means in the real world is an open question
and would be different depending upon the specific circumstances and
difficult to predict. It is significant power to have control over the
official release at the present time. If they did not have significant
power people would not spend significant efforts lobbying them to make
changes. Any new developers hired by companies will do so because they
can influence over the official release since that is the only incentive.
It seems to me that this block size fork is only the beginning of the
issues that will arise over the coming years. Whatever powers the core
maintainers have it is going to be exploited one way or another as time
goes on. Maybe there are enough feedback mechanisms to protect against
that, I don't really know.
Russ
On 6/28/2015 3:05 PM, Patrick Murck wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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/a1d2d818/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 15:40:18

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message: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).
>

2023-06-07 15:40:17

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message: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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Russ
On 6/28/2015 8:30 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote:
>> On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> 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.
>> [...]
>>
>> 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.
> I wasn't asking for an example of something that was rejected, there's
> plenty of those.
> You were saying people were opposing a change and jgarzik unilaterally added it.
> When did that happen?
>
>> 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.
> There are many pieces of software and many maintainers, libbitcoin,
> for example, is another full node implementation different from
> Bitcoin core.
> Also, to change Bitcoin core I don't need to convince anyone, I do it
> all the time here https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin
>
>> 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.
> Maybe Bitcoin core devs have more influence, but still, they don't
> have the power to decide for everyone else what the consensus rules
> are.
> Your analogy is ridiculous, it literally takes seconds to fork bitcoin
> and is as simple as clicking a button.
> Wladimir has explained many times that he hasn't decided anything
> because he can't decide that.
> You keep insisting that he has control over consensus rules. Are you
> doing it because you want him to be threaten, tortured, kidnapped or
> killed?
> If you don't, please stop making false claims about powers he doesn't
> have because some bad guy could believe you.
>
>> 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.
> For the last time, they may have control over Bitcoin core (one
> implementation of the Bitcoin protocol), not the consensus rules.
> Why are anyone's bitcoin holdings relevant in any technical discussion?
> Please, keep this kind of offtopic comments out.
>
>> Anyone can attack the system by simply
>> hiring a couple core developers and creating the gridlock we see now.
> As said several times, yes, it is hard to define "uncontroversial"
> without giving veto powers to any random guy on the internet.
> But this is clearly not what is happening now. Most Bitcoin core devs
> are against the current proposals, that cannot be considered
> uncontroversial for any sane definition of it.
>

2023-06-07 15:40:16

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message: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.
I am saying that after all the concerns are addressed as far as
reasonably possible someone, somewhere has to decide whether or not to
commit the changes to the official release. Right now the only person
who makes that decision if the version manager. I agree it should not
fall onto the shoulders of one person who is also very busy doing other
things. I am saying there should be some process to move forward and
make decisions when needed.
Also, you already saw one of the Core developers calling me a "troll"
and telling others to ignore my messages. I have heard of several
people who just drop out of the github discussions because of stuff like
that. They also delete message from Gihub discussions so that archive
is not 100% credible. 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. 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.
Russ
On 6/26/2015 7:13 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote:
>> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote:
>> As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and
>> someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.
> This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition.
> I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code
> changes is almost always 100%.
> Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules
> (the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples
> of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
>
> Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with
> opposition to them?
> In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would
> you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing
> or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code
> or explaining it) better in restrospective?
>

2023-06-07 15:40:16

- reply

📅 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>

2023-06-07 15:40:15

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25
📝 Original message:The more specific answer (from a user's perspective) is that there is
unanimous approval within the constraints of the Bitcoin system. The
constraint is that your software must be compatible with merchants and
exchanges for your coins to have value. Stating "unanimous approval"
without identifying the constraint is misstating the issue.
As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100%
and someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable
consensus. Most of the cultish answers completely overlook this issue
even though it is main point of the question.
Russ
On 6/24/2015 11:00 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>
> > Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.
>
> Excellent. Now we are getting to some actual written rules. How about
> updating the BIP process documentation with this? Everyone should be
> able to read the rules of the coin they are buying.
>
> One moment though. Can you tell me how this particular rule came to
> be? The creator of Bitcoin violated this rule many times. So it must
> have been adopted after his departure. What process was followed to
> adopt this new rule? Was there consensus for it at the time? A huge
> portion of the user community is under the impression that Satoshi's
> written plans, some of which violate this new rule, will be
> implemented. So there certainly would not be consensus for this rule
> today.
>
> On 24 Jun 2015 6:51 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason
> that people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed
> process that does work (thank you very much!) and is well
> documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it is a
> defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which differs
> in some ways from how other open source software is developed --
> although it remains the same in most other ways.
>
> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get
> merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from
> recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and
> the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that
> the code is ready.
>
> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core
> only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long
> discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a
> chance to comment, and no significant objections remain.
> Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.
>
> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example,
> with working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place
> where changes define the nature and validity of other people's
> money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket and define how
> you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is that
> no one has that right, yet that is very much what we do when
> consensus code changes are made. That is why when we make a change
> to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make sure
> that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.
>
> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without
> issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in
> the very near future, and we intend to repeat this process for
> more interesting changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>
> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." This
> is about no one having the right to decide these things on the
> behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed and not
> accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process
> is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has
> nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the
> nature of bitcoin itself.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin
> <milly at bitcoins.info <mailto:milly at bitcoins.info>> wrote:
>
> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers
> become defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence
> answer when this question is asked. It seems to be it is
> based on personalities rather than any kind of definable
> process. To have that discussion the personalities must be
> separated out and answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do
> that" don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also,
> the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will
> be paid by companies who want to influence the code and this
> should be considered (some developers take this statement as
> an insult when it is just a statement of the incentive process).
>
> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does
> not want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very
> significant decider. While the users have the ultimate choice
> in a practical sense the chief developer is the "decider."
> Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody wants to push
> the issue or fully define the process. Now you are left with
> a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of
> thing may work with a small group of developers
> businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see this
> as a risk.
>
> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you
> are going to have a tough time defining a real process.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>
> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined,
> or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who
> should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP
> implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of
> these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then what is?
>
> Raystonn
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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/20150624/db6e451a/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 15:40:14

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25
📝 Original message:I agree with all this. However, as a practical matter the consensus
rules are not separated out so one person decides whether the "rough
consensus" has been reached and if the consensus rules should be
changed. It really has nothing to do with any personality involved or
whether they do a good or bad job. The final decision should probably
not fall into the lap of one person but it does for now and that is just
the way it is because there is no better way to do it if you want to get
things done.
I am also not saying any specific process is good or bad, I am saying
the lack of a defined process causes wasted time and effort. Once you
define the process you have now (the baseline) then you can evaluate
whether parts of it are good or bad.
As the developer system transitions into a paid system where commercial
entities hire developers then there is no incentive for them to do that
if changes can never be made. A defined process will give more
assurance for commercial entities to bring more developers on board.
Russ
On 6/25/2015 9:41 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the guy a break, please.
>
> - Eric Lombrozo
>
>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r <s7r at sky-ip.org> wrote:
>>
>> I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide and
>> if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you
>> will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good.
>>
>> He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on CONSENSUS
>> changes or protocol changes. This is totally different.
>>
>> Stop the analogy with "other open source projects". This is an open
>> source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source projects
>> which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in bitcoin
>> we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have value.
>> If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are
>> not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since
>> such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, affecting
>> everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human
>> element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is
>> developed in open source style.
>>
>> It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc.
>> and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play
>> with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This
>> shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to
>> throw this on his shoulders.
>>
>> I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should
>> remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should not
>> be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list
>> where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time,
>> through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get the
>> chance to choose / take action.
>>
>> On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote:
>>> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become
>>> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this
>>> question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather
>>> than any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the
>>> personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such
>>> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also,
>>> the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by
>>> companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered
>>> (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a
>>> statement of the incentive process).
>>>
>>> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to
>>> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While
>>> the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief
>>> developer is the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so
>>> nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are
>>> left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of
>>> thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors
>>> looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.
>>>
>>> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going
>>> to have a tough time defining a real process.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>>>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least
>>>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on
>>>> approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a
>>>> simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then
>>>> what is?
>>>>
>>>> Raystonn
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

2023-06-07 15:40:14

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25
📝 Original message:In the context of this discussion the Bitcoin Core release manager is
the "decider" of what goes into the release. Nobody said he was
elected. The discussion also has nothing to do with any specific person
and nobody said anyone did anything wrong. One of the reason why a
process needs to be developed so issues are not sidetracked into a
dramatized discussion over personalities which is a big waste of time.
Some of the developers are now essentially full time drama queens who
write a little bit of code on the side.
Russ
On 6/25/2015 1:03 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com
> <mailto:elombrozo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances.
> Give the guy a break, please
>
>
> A+ agreed. He is not an elected decider - he is the Bitcoin Core
> release manager, and has been doing a damn fine job.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150625/b0b2a67a/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:40:06

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25
📝 Original message:These are the kind of silly responses you often get when this subject
comes up. Mr. Garzik knows how to ignore messages he doesn't want so I
see no need for him to use the list to attack people he doesn't agree
with and/or try to interfere with discussions of others on the list.
He turns it into a personality discussion rather than a discussion of
Systems Engineering. He also tries to intimate anyone who brings up the
discussion and "punish" them as a lesson to anyone else who may raise
the issue.
It is interesting that people like that are attracted to a decentralized
system. The reply is simply an attempt at protecting turf which is why
Mr. Garzik's vague replies are never taken seriously on the subject of
decision-making process for the software.
Russ
On 6/25/2015 1:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll. This has been explained
> to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list & github
> with no impact.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info
> <mailto:milly at bitcoins.info>> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response
> everyone gets when they ask that question. If you had a well
> constructed documented process then you would be able to point to
> it ... but you can't. While there are a few bits and pieces
> scattered about in different places there is no coherent plan or
> process.
>
> It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous"
> but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you
> have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run
> software with the same consensus rules. The issue is how you move
> forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it
> is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat
> to their authority/position. If people just keep shutting down
> the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are
> never going to move forward with developing some kind of process.
>
> From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven
> and not based on Computer Science or and defined process. The
> issue is that a personality has changed so the process is
> perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork.
> Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is
> decentralized because people can fork the code. Now that some
> developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.
> Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the
> work of the devil? The fact that there is so much diverse
> opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully
> vetted or understood.
>
> I have worked on these processes for many years for projects
> orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure
> you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time
> are wasted. That should be readily apparent from the recent
> discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people
> outside the developer's inner circle.
>
> Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason
>> that people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed
>> process that does work (thank you very much!) and is well
>> documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it is a
>> defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which differs
>> in some ways from how other open source software is developed --
>> although it remains the same in most other ways.
>>
>> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get
>> merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from
>> recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and
>> the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that
>> the code is ready.
>>
>> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin
>> Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long
>> discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a
>> chance to comment, and no significant objections remain.
>> Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.
>>
>> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example,
>> with working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place
>> where changes define the nature and validity of other people's
>> money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket and define how
>> you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is
>> that no one has that right, yet that is very much what we do when
>> consensus code changes are made. That is why when we make a
>> change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make
>> sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.
>>
>> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
>> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without
>> issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment
>> in the very near future, and we intend to repeat this process for
>> more interesting changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>>
>> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider."
>> This is about no one having the right to decide these things on
>> the behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed and not
>> accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process
>> is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has
>> nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the
>> nature of bitcoin itself.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin
>> <milly at bitcoins.info <mailto:milly at bitcoins.info>> wrote:
>>
>> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers
>> become defensive and they usually give a very vague
>> 1-sentence answer when this question is asked. It seems to
>> be it is based on personalities rather than any kind of
>> definable process. To have that discussion the personalities
>> must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such
>> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the
>> discussion. Also, the incentive for new developers to come in
>> is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence
>> the code and this should be considered (some developers take
>> this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of
>> the incentive process).
>>
>> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does
>> not want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very
>> significant decider. While the users have the ultimate
>> choice in a practical sense the chief developer is the
>> "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody
>> wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you
>> are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While
>> this type of thing may work with a small group of developers
>> businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see
>> this as a risk.
>>
>> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you
>> are going to have a tough time defining a real process.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>>
>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined,
>> or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who
>> should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP
>> implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority
>> of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then
>> what is?
>>
>> Raystonn
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150625/3deb2320/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:40:04

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-24
📝 Original message:I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become
defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this
question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather
than any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the
personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such
wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also,
the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by
companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered
(some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a
statement of the incentive process).
The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to
be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While
the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief
developer is the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so
nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are
left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of
thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors
looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.
Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going
to have a tough time defining a real process.
Russ
On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then what is?
>
> Raystonn
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 15:39:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:It is actually not odd at all that a formal process is dismissed out of
hand. It is all about protecting turf and holding on to power. If
there is a well defined process then that takes the power out of the
hands of the people who have been running the show and making up the
rules. In some cases developers see Bitcoin as their "baby" and they
think they must control it in order to protect it but in doing so they
can become an "overprotective parent." Another problem is that some
people in Bitcoin have disdain for the people they need such as
financial, economic, security, and legal experts. Some think they are
smarter than those people because they discovered Bitcoin first and they
think their knowledge of Bitcoin means they are also superior in all
these other areas. I have seen some discussions of developers who have
met with people from the financial sector and they come out of the
meeting with the attitude that all the experts are stupid and that
Bitcoiners have everything figured out. One developer tried to tell me
that you can't do systems engineering in Bitcoin because it involves
security rather than safety (of course that issue has been well vetted
and NIST has a whole series of documents to address that very issue
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html).
Russ
On 6/26/2015 6:16 PM, Simon Liu wrote:
> If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be
> safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering
> project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a
> well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly
> evaluate proposed changes. Although too late for the block size debate,
> it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of
> hand.
>
> To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based
> around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would
> suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any
> decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit
> alone rather than economic interest.
>
> --Simon
>
>> You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of
> that change.
>
>> In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know
>> that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous
>> things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn
>> that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather
>> than after.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

2023-06-07 15:38:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I have a specific
process that should be followed, I am saying that whatever the process
is then it should be formalized or at least written down. That way the
stakeholders have something to work with and keeps people on track.
Since some people are saying they don't really know what the process is
the first step would be to describe the current process. I don't fully
understand the current process but I can see it is not formalized and
nobody can even give me a clear description of what it is. Once you
have it written down then changes/improvements can be proposed.
The first baby step was already done by the Foundation in developing
that risk study. A NIST guide for developing such a document is at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30-rev1/sp800_30_r1.pdf.
No one person can come up with this and it would take buy in from
several different people who have expertise in specific technical areas
as well as experts in coming up with test plans. I recently suggested
to the people running the MIT lab that they look into developing a
program along those lines. Gavin also recently suggested that list of
Bitcoin metrics be developed to help resolve the current disputes. I
can help develop this process if there is interest.
Russ
On 6/18/2015 11:46 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>> This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more
>> diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big
>> group of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the
>> informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens
>> all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things
>> in an inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you
>> ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes
>> work better.
> So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.
>
> In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process.
>
> E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes.
>
> So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead.
>
> Wladimir
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH
> sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+
> U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv
> m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5
> Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ
> llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw=
> =dMO9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

2023-06-07 15:38:41

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:On 6/18/2015 11:03 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net
> <mailto:mike at plan99.net>> wrote:
>
> The first issue is how are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I
> struggle to explain this to others because I don't understand it
> myself. Is it a vote of people with commit access? Is it a 100%
> agreement of "core developers" and if so, who are these people? Is
> it "whoever reverts the change last"? Could I write down in a
> document a precise description of how decisions are made? No, and
> that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long time.
>
>
> There is a quote from United States Supreme Court Justice Potter
> Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity which is relevant
> here: "I know it when I see it."
>
> It is hard certainly, and perhaps even impossible to write down a
> system of rules that is used to resolve every dispute among core
> developers. But that doesn't mean it isn't obvious to all the
> participants what is going on. If a contentious change is proposed,
> and if after sufficient debate there are still members of the
> technical community with reasoned, comprehensible objections who are
> not merely being obstinate in the views -- a neutral observer would
> agree that their concerns have not been met -- then there is a lack of
> consensus.
>
> If there was some sort of formal process however, the system wouldn't
> work. Rules can be gamed, and if you add rules to a process then that
> process can be gamed. Instead we all have a reasonable understanding
> of what "technical consensus" is, and we all know it when we see it.
> Where we do not see it, we do not proceed.
>
There is always a process. Right now the process is haphazard, unclear,
and constantly changing without being written down so people don't
actually know what it is. In fact you do not all have a reasonable
understanding of "technical consensus" because if you did then you could
write it down ... but you can't. The current process is being gamed by
people making tweets, reddit posts, videos, and blog posts. A more
formalized process would channel that activity into a a more usable format.
This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more
diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big group
of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the informal
processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens all the time
but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things in an
inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you ever
worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes work better.
Russ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/84bd5100/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:38:40

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:What is immediately clear to anyone who looks at Bitcoin software
development is that there is no clear process or method to make
changes/updates to the software. When I have questioned this in the
past the response is usually some cultish answer about how some kind of
technical consensus is reached yet nobody can point to an actual
process. If companies are expected to dedicate resources to adopt
Bitcoin there needs to be some type of process spelled out that can give
these entities at least minimal assurance that there is some type of
process in place. I think the whole process is based on how certain
personalities handle issues but as those personalities change the system
changes in unknown ways which equates to risk.
The other thing that is immediately clear is that there is no systems
engineering process in place to make changes. A "risk study" was done
by the Bitcoin Foundation but that is only the first baby step in the
process. It works by defining a set of risks, likelihood, mitigations,
etc. and a risk matrix and maintaining those as living documents.
When changes are proposed alternative scenarios are created and they are
measured against the baseline of what there is now. Standard test plans
are created to measure the changes against defined metrics. It is a lot
of work to define those risks to the level of detail needed for work
like this. However, the amount of time/energy saved in the end is
tremendous. Right now the process is haphazard at best with people
posting random tweets, Reddit posts, blog posts, etc. All this drama
makes Bitcoin look somewhat amateurish and rather risky.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004cmmi/CMMIT1Mon/Track1IntrotoSystemsEngineering/KISE09RiskManagementv2.pdf
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bitcoin-Risk-Management-Study-Spring-2014.pdf
Some people also seems to conflates the notion of decentralization of
the state of the ledger by mining/nodes with that of decentralization of
open source software by forking the software. These are very different
problems and I don't think it is possible (or even desirable) to achieve
the same level of decentralization for both things. In any case
"decentralization" for the state of the blockchain is only an
approximation anyway since there are things like 51% attacks and
checkpoints.
Russ
On 6/18/2015 7:14 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>> Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
>> all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
>> 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
>> issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
>> can then block any change.
> Bitcoin Core is completely different from your average open source project in one aspect: where it concerns consensus.
>
> Like in any open source project there is lots of decision making ability for code changes. I'd say look at the changelog for e.g. 0.11 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.11/doc/release-notes.md#0110-change-log, or follow pull requests for a while, to see how many decisions about changes are made from day to day. No, I'm not sitting on my hands, and so is none of the other contributors that you'd like to get rid of.
>
> Consensus changes are *much* more difficult, on the other hand. Even relatively straightforward softforks come with a long discussion process (see BIP62, BIP66). A hardfork is hard to do at the best of times (everyone needs to upgrade their software!), and simply not possible if almost the entire technical community disagrees with you.
>
> Bitcoin is supposed to be a robust, global, decentralized network beyond anyone's control. It makes *no sense* to try to run it as a dictatorship. This would create a handy central position where power can be applied, pushing through changes to the behavior of the system, either by force or other ways of motivation. I refuse to take part in that.
>
> Hence, anything that is controversial needs to be considered really carefully. If I suddenly start making changes to the consensus code without full agreement, by all means take away my commit privileges.
>
> (a major reason for the ongoing libconsensus work is to separate "Bitcoin Core, the node software" and "The Bitcoin Consensus" along clear lines, to avoid this kind of nasty confusion)
>
> Wladimir
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgqfOAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmFT8H/Rkm29AhLhT8R1Vx8oKUIzID
> +NB7tOps3lIilkDQIC5zHSknx5iugrrAdRf1w7qPj/o8+xhCZw9ruu8eIq+djkRQ
> tvzbHil2pqgT3VHriRlY4lvlmu2NmBcYrAuX9sDhUHBo6cwGajfKMJPfE0haK3K4
> 7EmfdGXJYJmiBnhE6ikOiU687M2WgsmIGrBDIxeA5wYwVK9Ph8hfcbuj7AHvIMI9
> ZNU/V6uhcTjn5wT+6DHGIOxHipYHyAwKb7jKho0XkM6Yi4ORe1mxF5HDtqA0ztta
> mZPNjNrt/ngK20xRbqkb0GtxoyZq38ZF3Bq1gaWl2v9MBBMD5ZxQAvgCNUQFEo0=
> =W26K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

2023-06-07 15:38:32

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:>2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't
anyone's decision for anyone else. It's up to each individual user as
to what code they run and what rules they enforce. So then why is
everyone so up in arms about what Mike and Gavin are proposing if
everyone is free to decide for themselves?
Because the notion that people are free to decide for themselves is just
a rough approximation of the real world situation. If your software
does not agree with merchants and exchanges you can't pay your bills and
if Bitcoin splits the exchange rate could plummet and damage the
ecosystem. People are free to decide within the constraints of the
Bitcoin system.
Russ