- Nov 16, 2015
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13025363#msg13025363VeritasSapere said:Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.
gmaxwell said:Do not be confused: The fact that most of the dozens of developers choose to collaborate to build a stronger and better Bitcoin implementation than we could build alone does not make development non-distributed.
The process is Bitcoin is one that amplify the independence of developers generally, even beyond the level of open source software, -- including down to the fact that multiple developers must collaborate to produce releases (so we do not just end up with only one or two person who knows how), that any user can produce the same binaries that we do, that we do not have an auto-update process, and so on. Many more complex features begin life in developers personal forks (which exist, though most don't make releases from them intended for the public (although Luke-Jr has for years)). Our software licensing enables developers to go off and do their own thing based on the codebase, even if the original authors strongly disagree with them.
When you say stuff like this, given the permissive open source software and development process what you're effectively saying is that developers should cooperate less and instead expend their efforts on more duplicated work.
I don't think that is a way to make Bitcoin successful. But I can think of a few parties that would benefit from that outcome...
VeritasSapere said:Thank you for responding, I do respect much of the work you have done within Bitcoin Core.
Even if the internal governance structure of Core is as perfect as it can be it does not change that this still represents a singular governance and organizational structure which is ultimately controlled by just a few people. By extension having multiple implementations being worked on in tandem would in effect distribute this power of development more, since decentralization does exist on a spectrum. This would also allow for more freedom of choice which would further lead to the Bitcoin protocol better reflecting the will of the economic majority.
That the Bitcoin protocol should reflect the will of the economic majority however should be considered a subjective ideology. When there are fundamental ideological disagreements this type of split might be justified considering that one side of this disagreement is unable to have their choice reflected in Core.
I understand that distributing/decentralizing development more would slow down development. In the same sense that more totalitarian forms of governance can reach decisions quicker and more efficiently compared to more democratic systems. I would argue however that even though this would cause development to slow down, it would still be worth it considering that the protocol would better reflect the will of the economic majority. Especially considering that some of the issues that the governance of Bitcoin or body politic needs to decide on now and into the future are fundamentally ideological in nature, which should not be decided on by a small group of technical experts.
Cooperation will still be important, since in such a future different implementations would still need to negotiate consensus critical changes depending on how the miners vote. Since it would not be in the interests of everyone involved to split the network unless there are fundamental ideological differences that can not be resolved. Much of the work Core has done recently surely would not be rejected by other implementations, it adds value to the entire Bitcoin ecosystem so I do thank you for that and I do appreciate your contribution.
For some issues however like the blocksize specifically, it does seem like some other alternative implementations are willing to implement this change sooner then Core is willing to. So when it comes to fundamental disagreements like the blocksize in this case at least having multiple implementations might speed up the implementation of what the economic majority wants. More then seventy five percent of the miners are voting for an increased blocksize after all.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13076187#msg13076187brg444 said:That's supposed to tell us what exactly? That under the most optimal technical environment "the network" can substain large blocks? I'm shocked.
gmaxwell said:Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.
VeritasSapere said:If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101? If you would implement BIP101 under such conditions you will have my full support. However if you intend to ignore the economic majority and still attempt to push your own agenda while circumventing and undermining the proof of work consensus then I will accuse Core of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it Greg Maxwell, can you answer this question?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13092979#msg13092979VeritasSapere said:If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101?
gmaxwell said:You appear to be conflating unlike things here, the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.
VeritasSapere said:If you would implement BIP101 under such conditions you will have my full support. However if you intend to ignore the economic majority and still attempt to push your own agenda while circumventing and undermining the proof of work consensus then I will accuse Core of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it Greg Maxwell, can you answer this question?
gmaxwell said:Have you stopped beating your wife?
After careful consideration I believe that BIP 101 is a seriously poor proposal, and I doubt the system would survive in an interesting form with that in the long run: but I don't care to try to convince you of that; when it comes down to it I'm uninterested in being involved in any system implementing it, and so I won't be. If the Bitcoin goes along with it-- I'll just work on something else. And it's my own free choice and will to decide what I work on in my time, hopefully you agree? (mimicking your approach) and if you think you can tell me what I can work on, how I can spend my time, and what thoughts or program I can publish on my own sites I will accuse you of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it, person who feels comfortable throwing rocks while hiding behind a pseudonym, can you answer this question?