Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes

[Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
 wrote:
> - Bitcoin-B (Blockstream)

Blockstream currently has no interest in maintaining a separate
implementation of Bitcoin.

At this time I believe doing so would have significantly negative
value; especially in light of the current climate where people are
conflating a tremendously destructive bifurcation of the Bitcoin
ledger with mere (and far more boring) alternative implementations.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Short review of previously-proposed exotic SIGHASH types

[jl2012 via bitcoin-dev]

Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-30 14:56 寫到:



SIGHASH_WITHOUT_PREV_SCRIPTPUBKEY
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_PREV_VALUE
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_INPUT_TXID
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_INPUT_INDEX
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_INPUT_SEQUENCE
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_OUTPUT_SCRIPTPUBKEY
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_OUTPUT_VALUE
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_INPUTS
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_OUTPUTS
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_INPUT_SELF
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_OUTPUT_SELF
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_TX_VERSION
SIGHASH_WITHOUT_TX_LOCKTIME
SIGHASH_SIGN_STACK_ELEMENT:
https://github.com/scmorse/bitcoin-misc/blob/master/sighash_proposal.md



Thanks for your summary. This one seems particularly interesting. 
However, it does not allow fine adjustment for each input and output 
separately, so I wonder if it really "fully enable any seen or unforseen 
use case of the CTransactionSignatureSerializer." as it claims.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Zach G via bitcoin-dev]

Yup I've been looking over twister thoroughly this week, it's very close to 
what I'm thinking and I'm sure the developer of that could easily do the 
project I'm doing. However he decided to make an alt coin and didn't use the 
real blockchain, which makes his network weak. It's a waste to not take 
advantage of the immense bitcoin computing power for this. I'm only planning on 
storing hashes in the blockchain though to prevent data bloat, and the parallel 
program which stores all the data will be a lot like twister. Additionally I'm 
going to take it beyond a messaging system, will be able to literally upload 
anything and everything to this system. Theres no limit to what this 
de-centralized system can do if designed correctly. Crypto graffiti has given a 
taste of that by uploading jpeg and png to the blockchain. 

Will be working on this 24/7 until the first release, will definitely tell you 
and others when the code is ready to be looked over. Fortunately I am employed 
by bitcoin so I can focus on this 

-Original Message-
From: Michael Wozniak 
To: hurricanewarn1 
Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 09:15 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship





 
Have you seen this: 
  http://twister.net.co/;>http://twister.net.co/
  
   

  
  

It sounds very similar to what you're trying to do.  Also, I'd be willing to 
help out in the form of running some alpha/beta software as part of the network 
once you get something working.  Depending what languages you're writing in, I 
might help with code.
  
 
 
  

  
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Zach G via bitcoin-dev 
   bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
 wrote:
   

   
The de-centralized forum directly integrates the 
Bitcoin blockchain with every post. I can see how you misunderstood since I 
wasn't specific in my first email. I'm surprised no one has done this yet, 
people have done things very similar but never took the leap to integrate the 
actual Bitcoin blockchain. Basically http://cryptograffiti.info/;>http://cryptograffiti.info/
 but with a parallel program that stores most of the data in a hash reference 
table, and shares that data via a torrent-esque system.
 
  The Bitcoin of thoughts. 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  -Original Message-
 From: Natanael natanae...@gmail.com>
 To: NxtChg nxt...@hush.com>
 Cc: bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 hurricanewarn1 hurricanewa...@aol.com>
 Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 7:46 am
 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship
 
 
  

   
 
  
  
One last comment here on this topic;
   
  
For anybody who wants to discuss decentralized communication mechanisms in 
general, they can come to 
   http://www.reddit.com/r/p2pcomms;>www.reddit.com/r/p2pcomms
 (up until these decentralized forums have become stable and common).
   
  
I've seen quite a few more of these projects lately, I want to make a list of 
them and would definitely like to contribute to making them not just usable, 
but good enough to gain popularity on their own. 
   
  
(And in case you wonder about my approach to moderation: let every user pick 
which moderators / filters / servers he trusts, and let them share their 
subscription preferences in place of sharing links to centralized forums.) 
   
  
- Sent from my phone
   
  
 Den 31 aug 2015 10:45 skrev "NxtChg via bitcoin-dev" < 
   mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
 
   
 


 >I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I nor 
 >anyone else will be able to control it. 

 

 Zander is working on the same thing: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/;>https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/
 

 

 But it's actually quite difficult to make it truly censorship-resistant: both 
in solving the theymos factor and spam/abuse/overloading as an attack. 

 

 

 >There is no doubt that the centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin 
 >community is massively inhibiting the advance of Bitcoin 

 >and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are scaring away 
 >intellectuals, businessman, and newbies that are just getting started. 

 

 We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need a regular 
forum. 

 

 Roger Ver controls 
http://bitcoin.com;>bitcoin.com,
 as I understand? 
https://bitcoin.com/forum/;>https://bitcoin.com/forum/
 would be nice. 

 

 And 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft)

[jl2012 via bitcoin-dev]

Jorge Timón 於 2015-08-30 14:56 寫到:

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:13 PM,   wrote:
This is based on the assumption that miners would always like to use 
up the

last byte of the available block size. However, this is just not true:

1. The 6 year blockchain history has shown that most miners have a 
soft cap

with their block size.

2. Chinese miners, controlling 60% of the network, rejected Gavin's 
initial

20MB proposal and asked for 8MB:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size
[...]


No, I'm not making such assumption. I'm focusing on what they CAN do,
while suspending judgement on their good will and not trying to
predict their future behavior from historic behaviour.
With 60% of the hashrate, you can easily get 100% by orphaning
everybody else's blocks. More importantly, being under the same
jurisdiction they can be forced to behave in certain way (for example,
censor transactions) by law.
I'm very worried about the current situation no matter how benevolent
current miners are. Thus weakening the only limit to mining
centralization that we have at the consensus rule level seems
extremely risky at this point.


The reason for 60% of block were generated in China is same as the 
reason for 60% of your clothes were made in China. The electricity there 
is the cheapest on the planet. Many dams were built in the past 10 years 
and now they have huge amount of surplus electricity due to economic 
downturn.


Not sure if you are aware of this thread: 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072474.0 . Could you imagine 
this in any developed country? As long as mining is largely dependent on 
energy, there is no hope to break the balance/imbalance.


Bandwidth is probably only a few percent of miners' cost. There is no 
evidence that the current level of centralization is a result of block 
size. Instead, clear evidence has shown that centralization is a result 
of pool mining*, invention of ASIC, and disparity of energy cost. (* 
People started pool mining in 2010 because they wanted lower variance, 
not because of the inability to run a full node)



For many reasons miners may want to have a smaller block size, which 
we
don't need to list them here. Although they can limit it by a softfork 
or
even 51% attack, it is a very violent process. Why don't we just allow 
them

to vote for a lower limit?

So I think the right way is to choose a mining-centralization-safe 
limit,
and let it free float within a range based on miner's vote. If we are 
lucky

enough to have some responsible miners, they will keep it as low as
possible, until the legitimate tx volume catches up. Even in the worst 
case,
the block size is still mining-centralization-safe. The upper limit 
may
increase linearly, if not exponentially, until we find a better 
long-term

solution. (sort of a combination of BIP100 and 101, with different
parameters)


My point is, a "soft cap" determined by miners clearly doesn't protect
us from mining centralization: the "hard cap" does.
Knowing that, and given that miners can currently set their own policy
block size maximum, what does this "voting on a lower limit" achieve?
What are the gains? Why are we "lucky" if they keep the lower one as
low as possible?


Even if we could quantify the level of centralization, it is a continuum 
and we must compromise between utility and centralization. Unless 
BIP101/103 is adopted, adjusting the hard cap always require a hardfork. 
For obvious technical and political reasons we can't have hardfork too 
frequently. Therefore, we need to leave some leeway: the hard cap may be 
a bit too high for today, but we are sure that technology will catch up 
in the near future.


Assuming we have plenty amount of "benevolent" miners, they will keep 
the block size low unless there is a real demand for larger block space. 
This is different from setting an individual soft limit, as that will 
lead to block size scarcity and therefore higher tx fee, which may be 
good for all miners. And as we say "miners can always decrease the block 
size with softfork or 51% attack", BIP100 materializes this possibility 
in a much smoother way.


I say "lucky" because I wholeheartedly believe it is good to keep the 
block as small as we really need. We can't do this by an equation so I 
would prefer to leave the power to miners (and they always have this 
power, anyway).



For the matter of "urgency", I agree with you that there is no actual
urgency AT THIS MOMENT. However, if a hardfork may take 5 years to 
deploy

(as you suggested), we really have the urgency to make a decision now.


Thank you for admitting it is not urgent!
I suggested 5 years for the concrete hardfork in bip99 because it's
clearly non-urgent and I wanted to be very conservative. I'm happy to
reduce that to say, 1 year (specially given that the change is very
simple to implement).
For a simple block size change (like, say bip102) 1 year (maybe 6

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev]

On 08/30/2015 01:38 AM, Adam Ritter via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of
> the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
> most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to
> pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other
> users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do
> with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as
> well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from
> decentralization).

I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares about
decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define that term.

"decentralization" has become a placeholder word for "features or ideas
that I like" and it's long past time to drag the discussion back into
the realm of concrete and achievable goals.

I think there are a few specific things we can surmise about what users
might mean when they say they want Bitcoin to be "decentralized":

* They should own their bitcoins, meaning that they retain exclusive
control over their balances. Even more precisely, the network must
always honour the conditions of the scripts associated with unspent outputs.

* Their fraction of the Bitcoin ledger must not be diluted.

* When they decide to spend their coins, they will be able to do so
without requiring permission from a third party.

A decentralized architecture in certain parts of the network can be
helpful for achieving those goals, but it is not always necessary, nor
is it always sufficient to achieve them.

-- 
Justus Ranvier
Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623


0xEAD9E623.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev]

I think your summary of what people actually want from decentralisation is
pretty good, Justus.


> I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares
> about decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define that
> term.
>

+1 Insightful

It's been quite impressive to see so many Bitcoin users and developers
saying, "Bitcoin is totally decentralised because it's open source and
nobody is in charge.. oh nooo we didn't mean you could change *those
lines! *If you want to change *those lines* then *we* must agree first!"

Believing simultaneously that:

1. Bitcoin is decentralised

2. Nobody should modify the code in certain ways without the agreement of
me and my buddies

is just doublethink.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Monarch via bitcoin-dev]

On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
You don't understand what value proof of work provides, or what 
features

differentiate good money from poor money, and you can't make a
defensible statement of Bitcoin's value proposition.

Because you can't do these things, you assume nobody else can do them
either and therefore the only way for Bitcoin to survive is to sweep 
the

problem under the rug and distract users with a word that means nothing
(and therefore means whatever the observer wants it to mean).

This is not a strategy that can be successful in the long term.



Proof of work is probabilistic transaction ordering (and timestamping
by extension), the only perceivable value in it is that it is
decentralized. If you don't have that set as a requirement there are
plenty of companies around who will act as a time stamping notary for
you, just as there are many cloud services around to host the SQL-
based Bitcoin replacement.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev]

Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal.  It is
essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
>
>> You don't understand what value proof of work provides, or what features
>> differentiate good money from poor money, and you can't make a
>> defensible statement of Bitcoin's value proposition.
>>
>> Because you can't do these things, you assume nobody else can do them
>> either and therefore the only way for Bitcoin to survive is to sweep the
>> problem under the rug and distract users with a word that means nothing
>> (and therefore means whatever the observer wants it to mean).
>>
>> This is not a strategy that can be successful in the long term.
>>
>
>
> Proof of work is probabilistic transaction ordering (and timestamping
> by extension), the only perceivable value in it is that it is
> decentralized. If you don't have that set as a requirement there are
> plenty of companies around who will act as a time stamping notary for
> you, just as there are many cloud services around to host the SQL-
> based Bitcoin replacement.
>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Monarch via bitcoin-dev]

On 2015-08-31 21:24, Allen Piscitello wrote:

Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal.  It
is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.



The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it.  What is
described in the whitepaper is a system without the trust of third
parties to process electronic payments, this can not exist without
decentralization.  Absent any unforseen revelations this is a
requirement rather than a suggestion or fleeting fancy.  Below a
decentralized Bitcoin you are free to make systems as centralized as
you please without affecting the parent, below a centralized Bitcoin
there is no room to make it less.  We really only have one shot at a
properly bootstrapped, decentralized currency, and it would be a great
shame to mess up the one we have with hasty decision making for
unclear goals.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev]

On 08/31/2015 04:42 PM, Monarch wrote:
> The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it.  What is
> described in the whitepaper is a system without the trust of third
> parties to process electronic payments, this can not exist without
> decentralization.  Absent any unforseen revelations this is a
> requirement rather than a suggestion or fleeting fancy.  Below a
> decentralized Bitcoin you are free to make systems as centralized as
> you please without affecting the parent, below a centralized Bitcoin
> there is no room to make it less.  We really only have one shot at a
> properly bootstrapped, decentralized currency, and it would be a great
> shame to mess up the one we have with hasty decision making for
> unclear goals.

You keep using the word "decentralized" without explaining (and most
likely, understanding) what it means.

You say:

> a system without the trust of third parties to process electronic payments

What does it mean to use a decentralized network instead of a trusted
third party to process electronic payments? What undesirable actions can
a trusted third party perform that a decentralized network can not perform?

The answer to those questions are the *actual* goals, for which
decentralization is just one portion of a solution.

It might be helpful to organize Bitcoin's various existing, potential,
rejected, and proposed features using the Kano model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model

Example: The ability of one entity to spend another entity's Bitcoins
without their consent is a reverse quality.

It would at least give us something objective to talk about.

-- 
Justus Ranvier
Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623


0xEAD9E623.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Monarch via bitcoin-dev]

On 2015-08-31 21:54, Justus Ranvier wrote:


You keep using the word "decentralized" without explaining (and most
likely, understanding) what it means.



Decentralization is a ubiquitous term within the Bitcoin, and the
definition is by no measure new or often confused.  It is realizing
that systems involving trusted third parties have undesirable
properties, be it regarding privacy, fraud, censorship, and removing
the effect of them as much as is physically possible.  WASTE and
RetroShare are examples of decentralized messaging and file
distribution systems, acknowledging the privacy problems involved with
centralized systems like AOL Instant Messenger or IRC.




What does it mean to use a decentralized network instead of a trusted
third party to process electronic payments? What undesirable actions 
can
a trusted third party perform that a decentralized network can not 
perform?




Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the
ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
any particular party.  Users can independently verify that
transactions they receive are valid and confirmed, with strong
confidence that they can not be reversed or modified.  A third party
does not hold these same properties, there is no reason to believe the
information they present other than trust they will not lie, cheat, or
violate privacy at their own will.  Given information by a trusted
third party (such as a balance or existance of transaction), a person
has no ability to independently validate their claims as you do in a
decentralized system.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev]

On 08/31/2015 05:53 PM, Monarch wrote:
> 
> Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the
> ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
> any particular party.  Users can independently verify that
> transactions they receive are valid and confirmed, with strong
> confidence that they can not be reversed or modified.  A third party
> does not hold these same properties, there is no reason to believe the
> information they present other than trust they will not lie, cheat, or
> violate privacy at their own will.  Given information by a trusted
> third party (such as a balance or existance of transaction), a person
> has no ability to independently validate their claims as you do in a
> decentralized system.

This is on the right track, but still falls short in a few areas.

It's a false dichotomy to say that our choices are: Bitcoin as it exists
today (or in some theoretical perfect state of decentralization), or an
Excel spreadsheet edited by a trusted third party who can change any
number to be any other number they want.

Imagine there was only one miner in the network. In spite of being the
sole entity creating the blockchain there would still be many actions
they could *not* do:

* Falsify ECDSA signatures
* Generate proof of work without expending energy
* Produce blocks that non-mining nodes would recognize as including
invalid transactions (including printing themselves unlimited balances)
* Force other people to purchase the coins they mine so that they can
pay their electric bills

What they *can* do is:

* Defraud recipients of transactions by including a payment transaction
in a block, then orphaning that block with another block that contains a
conflicting transaction (double spend).

There is usually*** a cost to performing this attack, so miners would
only be expected to do it if the benefit exceeds the cost.

* Prevent the inclusion of valid transactions into any block using any
criteria they want.

The worse case scenario for mining monopolization is that the risk of
profitable double spends means that transactions might require more
confirmations to be reliable, and that some entity can censor
transactions at will.

Those aren't exactly end-of-the world failure cases. They are certainly
undesirable and every means of preventing them should be investigated,
but it does mean that it should be possible to dial back on the
catastrophe language when analysing possible failure modes.

The weakest area for Bitcoin to be attacked is via censorship enforced
by miners.

The first line of defence is to improve the privacy features of wallets
to the point at which blacklists are not effective. I'm confident that
this can be achieved.

That leaves the censors with the choice of whether or not to escalate to
whitelisting, which ultimately can be countered by users switching to a
new system which does not have that particular anti-feature.

tl;dr: Bitcoin security does not lie on a one-dimensional "centralized
vs decentralized" axis. Treating it as if it does removes the clarity
that is needed in order to effectively solve problems.

***Exploring the exact conditions under which this is true is an
interesting exercise and relevant to long term discussions vis a vis the
block subsidy and transaction fees in the future.

-- 
Justus Ranvier
Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623


0xEAD9E623.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Disable digests on bitcoin-dev

[Augusto Radtke via bitcoin-dev]

Indeed, for an occasional reader perspective, nightmarish. List signature
also a bit annoying but it's possible to live with it.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I think we should agree to disable the ability to subscribe with digests
> on bitcoin-dev list.  I think digests were from an earlier era of Internet
> history.  Digests are inconvenient for everyone because replies have the
> problem of breaking threads.These days people should be setting mail
> filters to separate list mail from other mail.  I think digests are really
> not a net-positive for the community so we should just turn off the ability
> to do it.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Warren Togami
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[s7r via bitcoin-dev]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Decentralization depends on the context and does not have a definition
in a form that it was demanded... I can confirm we have people in our
community which do understand decentralization, and quite good
actually, just there is no definition if the form demanded.

It is known that ~90% (at least of the nodes accepting incoming
connections) are running Bitcoin Core software. This does not mean
that Bitcoin is somehow less decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open
source, it has many contributors from all over the world and there are
many pull requests - most of them do get merged if you check the
commit history. It is widely used because the quality of the code is 5
stars. There are other implementations as well, they are just not
widely used. This does not mean one is not free to write his own
implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (assuming he follows the
consensus rules of the network). The biggest problem is convincing
users to adopt that implementation, which is a normal thing which
happens in general, not only related to software implementations.

The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes
near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to
try other implementations as well, but something serious, because
Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with.

This is the reason why a lot of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core
rather than writing their own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin
Core stronger, better, and obviously the result is that it has
majority in the ecosystem for good reasons. If I'm experienced in a
certain segment related to software developing, I am better of in
contributing to Bitcoin Core just with the part I know instead of
writing from scratch my own implementation.

On 9/1/2015 2:32 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev 
>  > wrote:
> 
>> Even so, *decentralization is a means to an end* - not an
>> end-goal. It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative,
>> of course.
> 
> I agree.  What about decentralization in development?  Gavin
> recently said that he wants to "get to the point where there will
> be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol."
> 
> When I look at this image (https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif)
> illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and development, the
> biggest source of concern for me is the 85% node share around
> Bitcoin Core.  With this level of centralization, it may be
> possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important
> changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their
> interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin
> community).
> 
> It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple
> implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the
> network's dependency on Core.
> 
> Best regards, Peter R
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV5OeqAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRRsoIAMmdyeE+Sro14NIHy6jQqTH3
JdkhUg6lg7S58tqs7ahQ/U2QGMPLaQae9yv3NidKpyqzL0YXtc2+r7RDBp0p2L4O
ieBJfJRBDwjjHYun+h7VTkPRbFGoBs/vwtTahd+uxUjwdEhiOxI2Q8pY8dLbdmJz
5lyA3TIcOVy3FjGYp3ji8aBQkw4o9OZbgmY/iCmVONgup96+81/FdR8P6wwdi3tg
Hep+4iU5Z+RHVE0sQhJDgl8Rw2oY6cmfxOCdFalRAASfZClkMfZok7eDE5yWtUbE
tn9tEP82tc3OwZCC+XvpVggVWnCp/rGZFslfTdiWXWeLXhs+JLf0hWet4/SWCT0=
=zQ9s
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev]

 > Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the

ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
any particular party.


Bitcoin is only a partial solution to the Byzantine general problem. 
Users do need to trust that things such as mining and development 
systems work as intended.  Once the user trusts those systems only then 
is the state of the ledger trustless.  Just because the state of ledger 
is decentralized due to mining that does not automatically mean 
everything associated with Bitcoin is "decentralized."  (Some people 
actually claim reddit is decentralized because users can vote.  That 
would mean the US government is also decentralized since there are 
elections but i don't think most people would agree with that definition.)


Centralized and decentralized system are not intrinsically good or bad. 
 Each one has it use cases just like a hammer and a screw driver. 
Claiming otherwise is treating Bitcoin a as religion rather than a 
technology.


Russ

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] AT has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box

[Zach G via bitcoin-dev]

I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year, I gave up and was using 
blockchain for months despite a strong desire to stay on Bitcoin Core, but now 
the issue has reached critical mass since I'm using the python Bitcoin server 
module. I have literally spent my entire day trying to open 8333, I thoroughly 
made sure it was open on the router and computer and it's still closed. 
Strangely enough I got it open for 30 seconds once today but something closed 
it immediately.

After hours of phone calls and messaging AT finally told me the truth of what 
was going on, and only because I noticed it myself and demanded an answer. The 
internet is being routed through a DVR/cable box, and they confirmed the DVR 
also has a firewall. To make this even more absurd they refused to turn the 
firewall off because it is their equipment. So effectively they can firewall 
any port they want even if the customer asks them not to, in the unlikely event 
the customer figures it out.

Perhaps this is the driving force behind the inexplicable and massive decline 
in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being censored by the ISPs themselves, and they 
won't even tell you that. I had to get in touch with headquarters and threaten 
to rip it out of the wall to get a proper answer. 
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box

[Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev]

I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year,

After hours of phone calls and messaging AT 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


___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box

[James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev]

You should tell AT that you want the DVR/cable box put into what is
usually referred to as "bridge mode" or sometimes "true bridge mode"
depending on your ISP and then use your own router, look under
"Bridged Mode" at the bottom of this page for AT
http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=23697 . You want your own router to
have the external IP, if it does not it is not configured correctly.
In general one should never use a router provided by their ISP for
anything other than modem functionality since it is typically only the
ISP that can change the firmware on it, it also makes troubleshooting
problems like this more difficult.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Zach G via bitcoin-dev
 wrote:
> I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year, I gave up and was
> using blockchain for months despite a strong desire to stay on Bitcoin Core,
> but now the issue has reached critical mass since I'm using the python
> Bitcoin server module. I have literally spent my entire day trying to open
> 8333, I thoroughly made sure it was open on the router and computer and it's
> still closed. Strangely enough I got it open for 30 seconds once today but
> something closed it immediately.
>
> After hours of phone calls and messaging AT finally told me the truth of
> what was going on, and only because I noticed it myself and demanded an
> answer. The internet is being routed through a DVR/cable box, and they
> confirmed the DVR also has a firewall. To make this even more absurd they
> refused to turn the firewall off because it is their equipment. So
> effectively they can firewall any port they want even if the customer asks
> them not to, in the unlikely event the customer figures it out.
>
> Perhaps this is the driving force behind the inexplicable and massive
> decline in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being censored by the ISPs themselves,
> and they won't even tell you that. I had to get in touch with headquarters
> and threaten to rip it out of the wall to get a proper answer.
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Message: 5

[William Miller via bitcoin-dev]

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:26:17 -0400
From: hurricanewa...@aol.com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] AT has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by
closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box
Message-ID: <14f864c1631-3abb-a...@webprd-a67.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year, I gave up and was
using blockchain for months despite a strong desire to stay on Bitcoin Core,
but now the issue has reached critical mass since I'm using the python
Bitcoin server module. I have literally spent my entire day trying to open
8333, I thoroughly made sure it was open on the router and computer and it's
still closed. Strangely enough I got it open for 30 seconds once today but
something closed it immediately.

After hours of phone calls and messaging AT finally told me the truth of
what was going on, and only because I noticed it myself and demanded an
answer. The internet is being routed through a DVR/cable box, and they
confirmed the DVR also has a firewall. To make this even more absurd they
refused to turn the firewall off because it is their equipment. So
effectively they can firewall any port they want even if the customer asks
them not to, in the unlikely event the customer figures it out.

Perhaps this is the driving force behind the inexplicable and massive
decline in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being censored by the ISPs themselves,
and they won't even tell you that. I had to get in touch with headquarters
and threaten to rip it out of the wall to get a proper answer.


I am grateful that, as of this current moment, Time Warner doesn't seem to
mind. I am aware of what you're saying, because a friend had me look at
their AT system one day, and I discovered all their equipment is now
running over IP. I was not aware, however, that they wouldn't unblock a
port.

I run a bitcoin node, miners ,all sort of other stuff (like Video, etc.) and
it runs pretty good, even with me myself having everything 'double
firewalled'. Time Warner seems the way to go!

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[NxtChg via bitcoin-dev]

>While this topic is very interesting, I do not see how it is 
>relevant to a mailing list dedicated to technical and academic debate. 
>Please can you take this discussion elsewhere.

Wow. I have Deja Vu. Where have I heard recently that discussing Bitcoin split 
is off topic and must be stopped?.. Hm...

This is the biggest issue with Bitcoin right now and you want us to move to 
some obscure place?

Where? Reddit?  Where we can't be heard? Create another list with top XT people 
then.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:49 AM, NxtChg  wrote:
>>While this topic is very interesting, I do not see how it is
>>relevant to a mailing list dedicated to technical and academic debate.
>>Please can you take this discussion elsewhere.
>
> Wow. I have Deja Vu. Where have I heard recently that discussing Bitcoin 
> split is off topic and must be stopped?.. Hm...
>
> This is the biggest issue with Bitcoin right now and you want us to move to 
> some obscure place?
>
> Where? Reddit?  Where we can't be heard? Create another list with top XT 
> people then.

This is a technical list dedicated to technical discussions revolving
around the bitcoin protocol and related technologies. What I am saying
is your discussion topic is not relevant to the long established theme
of this list. Please have a bit of decorum and respect for people who
joined this list so they could participate in and review
technical/academic topics.

Clearly there *should* be a general bitcoin discussion list somewhere,
I don't disagree (and I have repeatedly asked for one to be created),
but regardless, this list isn't it. The flood of off topic and
non-technical posts make it almost impossible to follow any technical
proposals.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[NxtChg via bitcoin-dev]

>I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I nor 
>anyone else will be able to control it.

Zander is working on the same thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/

But it's actually quite difficult to make it truly censorship-resistant: both 
in solving the theymos factor and spam/abuse/overloading as an attack.


>There is no doubt that the centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin 
>community is massively inhibiting the advance of Bitcoin 
>and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are scaring away intellectuals, 
>businessman, and newbies that are just getting started.

We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need a regular 
forum.

Roger Ver controls bitcoin.com, as I understand? https://bitcoin.com/forum/ 
would be nice.

And it must be a real community, not "say whatever you want because free 
speech". We've seen how that turned out to be.

Something like battle.net or Steam forums: heavily moderated, not for opinions, 
but for spam/noise/insults.

Again, this needs leadership. Anyone can install a forum software, what is 
needed is an "official seal of approval" and regular presence of top XT people 
there.

And a will to setup proper moderation. Then people will move.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev]

While this topic is very interesting, I do not see how it is relevant
to a mailing list dedicated to technical and academic debate. Please
can you take this discussion elsewhere.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Zach G via bitcoin-dev
 wrote:
> When I say de-centralized I mean it, all the things you listed are
> centralized. Reddit is actually a purely centralized system and just as
> unhealthy as the current bitcoin forum. We have the technology, I'm simply
> putting together the pieces that other people have already built. This forum
> will literally be uncontrollable in raw form, once it's unleashed it can't
> be stopped. It will exist on thousands of computers so it cannot be
> destroyed, it will not be centrally hosted.
>
> I expect users to create their own external software to parse the data, so
> people can centralize as much or as little as they want in their own
> 'sub-forums' built on this system. I will be releasing some very rudimentary
> external software/website to go along with this de-centralized system just
> so people can post and read what's posted, and will worry about the finer
> details at a later time.
>
> There will be various leaders who utilize this program and organize quality
> forums, but fundamentally the raw de-centralized system cannot be
> controlled, so people posting to it will always have a venue to speak
> without being censored.
>
> I actually started this project to create a journal of uncensored scientific
> research, but it didn't take long to realize this sort've thing is useful
> for pretty much everyone, so I'm rushing the basic release out. Then I will
> work on making my science journal 'sub-forum' software and everyone else can
> do whatever they want.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NxtChg 
> To: hurricanewarn1 ; bitcoin-dev
> 
> Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 4:45 am
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship
>
>
>>I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I
>> nor
> anyone else will be able to control it.
>
> Zander is working on the same thing:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/
>
> But it's actually quite difficult
> to make it truly censorship-resistant: both in solving the theymos factor
> and
> spam/abuse/overloading as an attack.
>
>
>>There is no doubt that the
> centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin community is massively
> inhibiting
> the advance of Bitcoin
>>and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are
> scaring away intellectuals, businessman, and newbies that are just getting
> started.
>
> We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need
> a regular forum.
>
> Roger Ver controls bitcoin.com, as I understand?
> https://bitcoin.com/forum/ would be nice.
>
> And it must be a real community,
> not "say whatever you want because free speech". We've seen how that turned
> out
> to be.
>
> Something like battle.net or Steam forums: heavily moderated, not for
> opinions, but for spam/noise/insults.
>
> Again, this needs leadership. Anyone
> can install a forum software, what is needed is an "official seal of
> approval"
> and regular presence of top XT people there.
>
> And a will to setup proper
> moderation. Then people will move.
>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[NxtChg via bitcoin-dev]

>...so people posting to it will always have a venue to speak without being 
>censored.

So is the attacker, who aims to make the place unusable.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Zach G via bitcoin-dev]

 When I say de-centralized I mean it, all the things you listed are 
centralized. Reddit is actually a purely centralized system and just as 
unhealthy as the current bitcoin forum. We have the technology, I'm simply 
putting together the pieces that other people have already built. This forum 
will literally be uncontrollable in raw form, once it's unleashed it can't be 
stopped. It will exist on thousands of computers so it cannot be destroyed, it 
will not be centrally hosted. 

I expect users to create their own external software to parse the data, so 
people can centralize as much or as little as they want in their own 
'sub-forums' built on this system. I will be releasing some very rudimentary 
external software/website to go along with this de-centralized system just so 
people can post and read what's posted, and will worry about the finer details 
at a later time.

There will be various leaders who utilize this program and organize quality 
forums, but fundamentally the raw de-centralized system cannot be controlled, 
so people posting to it will always have a venue to speak without being 
censored.

I actually started this project to create a journal of uncensored scientific 
research, but it didn't take long to realize this sort've thing is useful for 
pretty much everyone, so I'm rushing the basic release out. Then I will work on 
making my science journal 'sub-forum' software and everyone else can do 
whatever they want. 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: NxtChg 
To: hurricanewarn1 ; bitcoin-dev 

Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 4:45 am
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship



>I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I nor
anyone else will be able to control it.

Zander is working on the same thing:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/

But it's actually quite difficult
to make it truly censorship-resistant: both in solving the theymos factor and
spam/abuse/overloading as an attack.


>There is no doubt that the
centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin community is massively inhibiting
the advance of Bitcoin 
>and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are
scaring away intellectuals, businessman, and newbies that are just getting
started.

We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need
a regular forum.

Roger Ver controls bitcoin.com, as I understand?
https://bitcoin.com/forum/ would be nice.

And it must be a real community,
not "say whatever you want because free speech". We've seen how that turned out
to be.

Something like battle.net or Steam forums: heavily moderated, not for
opinions, but for spam/noise/insults.

Again, this needs leadership. Anyone
can install a forum software, what is needed is an "official seal of approval"
and regular presence of top XT people there.

And a will to setup proper
moderation. Then people will move.


 
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:03:33PM -0500, sisadm101--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> is from a one sided point of view? There doesn't seem to be a solution at
> this time, but I find it dissapointing that many (in this very email list)

Please, this has drifted so far from the goal of this list: bitcoin 
development, and technical and academic debate about that.

Meta-discussion of communities has no place here.

I'd say: in the spirit of permissionlessness, everyone can create a community 
or list about bitcoin. If you don't agree with the admin, create your own. 
That's more constructive use of everyone's time and energy than trying to 
pressure people to change their behavior on their own home turf.

Wladimir
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Natanael via bitcoin-dev]

One last comment here on this topic;

For anybody who wants to discuss decentralized communication mechanisms in
general, they can come to www.reddit.com/r/p2pcomms (up until these
decentralized forums have become stable and common).

I've seen quite a few more of these projects lately, I want to make a list
of them and would definitely like to contribute to making them not just
usable, but good enough to gain popularity on their own.

(And in case you wonder about my approach to moderation: let every user
pick which moderators / filters / servers he trusts, and let them share
their subscription preferences in place of sharing links to centralized
forums.)

- Sent from my phone
Den 31 aug 2015 10:45 skrev "NxtChg via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

>
> >I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I
> nor anyone else will be able to control it.
>
> Zander is working on the same thing:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/
>
> But it's actually quite difficult to make it truly censorship-resistant:
> both in solving the theymos factor and spam/abuse/overloading as an attack.
>
>
> >There is no doubt that the centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin
> community is massively inhibiting the advance of Bitcoin
> >and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are scaring away
> intellectuals, businessman, and newbies that are just getting started.
>
> We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need a
> regular forum.
>
> Roger Ver controls bitcoin.com, as I understand?
> https://bitcoin.com/forum/ would be nice.
>
> And it must be a real community, not "say whatever you want because free
> speech". We've seen how that turned out to be.
>
> Something like battle.net or Steam forums: heavily moderated, not for
> opinions, but for spam/noise/insults.
>
> Again, this needs leadership. Anyone can install a forum software, what is
> needed is an "official seal of approval" and regular presence of top XT
> people there.
>
> And a will to setup proper moderation. Then people will move.
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange

[Oliver Petruzel via bitcoin-dev]

>>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee

Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-inflation of the USD,
how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (and intentions)
of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software?

I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept in mind throughout all
of these discussions and developments, or else we risk turning Bitcoin into
something other than cash.

Bitcoin will no longer be a P2P cash system if the fees make transactions
prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest of individuals and
corporations.

I understand that a careful balance must be struck between (measurable?)
decentralization and Bitcoin's use as an actual cash system; however, those
who are willing to annihilate the latter to maintain ONLY the former must
at least be honest with everyone that they really don't care if Bitcoin
becomes something entirely different than Satoshi's original invention and
intention.

Call it a necessary transformation or reinvention, and by a new name, if
you will; because, with exorbitant fees, it may no longer be accurate or
appropriate to call it Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic CASH System.

Respectfully,
Oliver
On Aug 30, 2015 2:38 AM, "Adam Ritter via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I don't really see any problem with the paper:
> All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't
> centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the
> blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic
> research, and I believe that it's true.
> Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of
> the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
> most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to
> pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other
> users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do
> with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as
> well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from
> decentralization).
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

[Zach G via bitcoin-dev]

The de-centralized forum directly integrates the Bitcoin blockchain with every 
post. I can see how you misunderstood since I wasn't specific in my first 
email. I'm surprised no one has done this yet, people have done things very 
similar but never took the leap to integrate the actual Bitcoin blockchain. 
Basically http://cryptograffiti.info/ but with a parallel program that stores 
most of the data in a hash reference table, and shares that data via a 
torrent-esque system.
 
  The Bitcoin of thoughts.
 

 

-Original Message-
From: Natanael 
To: NxtChg 
Cc: bitcoin-dev ; hurricanewarn1 

Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 7:46 am
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship


 
One last comment here on this topic;
  
For anybody who wants to discuss decentralized communication mechanisms in 
general, they can come to www.reddit.com/r/p2pcomms (up until these 
decentralized forums have become stable and common).
  
I've seen quite a few more of these projects lately, I want to make a list of 
them and would definitely like to contribute to making them not just usable, 
but good enough to gain popularity on their own. 
  
(And in case you wonder about my approach to moderation: let every user pick 
which moderators / filters / servers he trusts, and let them share their 
subscription preferences in place of sharing links to centralized forums.) 
  
- Sent from my phone
  
Den 31 aug 2015 10:45 skrev "NxtChg via bitcoin-dev" <  
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:  
  
   
 >I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I nor 
 >anyone else will be able to control it.   

 Zander is working on the same thing:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/   

 But it's actually quite difficult to make it truly censorship-resistant: both 
in solving the theymos factor and spam/abuse/overloading as an attack.   


 >There is no doubt that the centralization and censorship of the Bitcoin 
 >community is massively inhibiting the advance of Bitcoin   
 >and also the growth of the Bitcoin economy. We are scaring away 
 >intellectuals, businessman, and newbies that are just getting started.   

 We have /r/bitcoinxt and so far it has been great. But we also need a regular 
forum.   

 Roger Ver controlsbitcoin.com, as I understand?
https://bitcoin.com/forum/ would be nice.   

 And it must be a real community, not "say whatever you want because free 
speech". We've seen how that turned out to be.   

 Something likebattle.net or Steam forums: heavily moderated, not for 
opinions, but for spam/noise/insults.   

 Again, this needs leadership. Anyone can install a forum software, what is 
needed is an "official seal of approval" and regular presence of top XT people 
there.   

 And a will to setup proper moderation. Then people will move.   

 ___   
 bitcoin-dev mailing list   
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org   
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev   
   
 
 

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev