From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D7B273 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:13:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABDDA16B for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:13:49 -0400 References: <558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info> <558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info> <558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <558FF307.9010606@bitcoins.info> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:13:43 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MISSING_HEADERS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:13:56 -0000 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 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. >