On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea Popescu
will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their objection to
Github but the point I am making is that no matter what change you make
someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the developers think that
Github is the only place that matters and that the only opinions that matter
is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think that way which is the reasoning
behind my statement.
Yes, I understand that it may be difficult to define
"uncontroversial", as I explain in
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html
I have seen things like a Github discussion between 3 or 4 people
and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is near universal approval for
the proposed change as it nobody is allowed to question it. After watching
the github process for a couple years I simply don't trust it because the
developers in charge have a dictatorial style and they shut out many
stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions.
Can you provide anything to back your claim?
Note that even if that's true, still, Bitcoin core != Bitcoin consensus rules.
I saw this problem first hand when Andreas Antonopolis got into a
big dispute with some of the core developers over the press
contacts. The github made up their rules as they went along and
simply ignored input from anyone outside their inner circle. Since
that time several people have told me they dropped out of
participating in the github process. The maintainers deleted some
of my messages and I have been told I am banned form github.
Further, as you can see on here Jeff Garzik, a guy who claims only
to hold a few hundred Bitcoin, told people on this list to ignore my
messages. There is also the incident where Gavin lambasted someone
for "hiding behind anonymity" when the whole project is based on an
anonymous contributor. I find it interesting that many developers
who work on a decentralized system. I don't like the general
attitude of the developers that they are the protectors of the
system and that everyone else is trying to exploit or do damage.
they often characterize different users/businesses/miners as
abusers, spammers, people trying to game the system, etc. while they
characterize the developers as pure and good. When the issue comes
up about authority over the code (which includes the consensus
rules) they spout all kinds of nonsense about how they don't have
significant control and are not deciders yet they never point to who
does decide. If they weren't the deciders then people would not be
spending all that time lobbying them. just because there are some
checks and balances does not mean it is "decentralized" or they are
not deciders.
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.