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."
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" <***@bitcoins.info
> <mailto:***@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.
> On 6/28/2015 3:05 PM, Patrick Murck wrote:
>> Wladimir has no more or less âpowerâ to push change to the
>> Bitcoin Core codebase than any other person with commit
>> privileges to the GitHub repo. If Iâm 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 isnât reverted and that gets packaged up into
>> the next code release) that still doesnât 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. Weâre 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 thatâs the cost of
>> having no wizard behind the curtain.
>> Patrick Murck
>> On June 28, 2015 at 9:23:47 AM, Milly Bitcoin
>> (***@bitcoins.info <mailto:***@bitcoins.info>) wrote:
>>> The core maintainer has always been in control of the consensus
>>> Satoshi came up with the rules and put them in there. Since then
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> On 6/28/2015 11:35 AM, Jorge TimÃ³n wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin
>>> <***@bitcoins.info> <mailto:***@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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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 mailing list