Re: [bitcoin-dev] Public Debate Challenge
>Unfortunately, one moral imbecile keeps polluting this space. Indeed. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>Bitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do, Marijuana is an individual activity. Precisely the problem with Bitcoin you envision, where each one of us could be easily jailed. Guns are quite different: they have NRA and judging by how successful it is at fending _any_ sort of gun control laws, it can very effectively counter-balance the government. If Bitcoin had it's own NBitA, it would be in a much better position to defend itself than a bunch of individual users. >A mining network that anyone can contribute to would enable Bitcoin to stay >alive in spite of this Again. Start building an alt-coin with ASIC-resistant algorithm then, it's much more important than the small blocks in your model. And it must also have other features to support your fight: integrated darkcoin-style anonymity, only TOR as the protocol, etc. Trying to use Bitcoin, which is overly-exposed, for this kind of fight is a pretty dumb idea. You won't have the benefits of a small attack surface and you won't have the benefits of strength - the most vulnerable position. Not to mention that many people simply don't share your vision of Bitcoin as a marginalized outlawed coin somewhere in the depths of TOR. Looking at how enthusiastically people in smallblockistan promote the most vulnerable position, I'd say they are all agents of USG. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered >incredibly far off-topic. How is this off-topic? This a fundamental decision, from which all the other development decisions follow. And apparently it's far from settled, with one part pulling in the direction of HideCoin and the other in the direction of PopCoin. The block limit debate is a direct consequence of this fundamental disagreement. Until this is settled, Bitcoin has no clear direction and developers cannot make effective decisions: it's hard to get anywhere when you don't know where you're going. Even though this disagreement probably won't be resolved on this list, it's helpful to have this discussion for people to understand what the root problem is. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model is either a >shill or an idiot. You meant to say "threat". This is what threat model is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model Nobody here discounts governments as a threat. As to the "proper threat model", you can't construct one since your attacker is essentially unbounded. For example, any large government could easily obtain 51% of hash power and then only accept transactions from "certified services". ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes >Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining >community it's a reasonable design. There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining community". Painting the worst looking picture is either a defect in thinking or intentional FUD. > Mike Hearn recently posted his threat model, which specifically argues we > should assume governments are not a threat. There are two ways to fight governments: 1. either you become too big to close, so political repercussions become unacceptable 2. or you become too tiny to hunt, in which case you are much better off with a specialized alt-coin, designed specifically for that purpose. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong >central authority that you can resist it in direct physical confrontation. >If you succeed at this, you are the threat. My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is: a) too important to close, b) able to provide adequate response to governments, like EFF or Google do. Having a substantial attack surface and, at the same time, not having significant power is the worst fighting strategy. It's the "Peter Todd vs 10 cops" scenario. >The inability to see another option is the inability to understand what >Satoshi created. So your closing remark is basically, "you're too stupid to understand"? I'll take it. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
>Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system >designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that >system as too important? Well, if you look at governments from the point of youtube illuminati videos, then, yeah, I guess my position would seem a bit off. But in that case no threat model or small blocks are gonna save you. As history shows, even if you go as deep as Dread Pirate Roberts, you will eventually be caught and prosecuted. So start building SilkRoadCoin, which only works via TOR, has ASIC-resistant algorithm and 10 Kb blocks. Then you might have a tiny chance. Most of us subscribed to a global "electronic cash system" and we intend to continue using Bitcoin for that. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship
>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
>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
>...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] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Eric, FWIW... These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but that's not the point. The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of Bitcoin became a bigger problem than the risks of a fork or larger blocks. You cannot govern a decentralized currency with a centralized entity. That's why we shouldn't fear hard forks - they are the new reality, and if we cannot set up a reliable process for them to happen then there _is_ no decentralized Bitcoin and we all might as well just give up and go home. And that's why it would be nice to have a more complex voting mechanism in the block header (see this proposal for the new header format, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151698) and other initiatives to make forking more reliable and user choice easier. This is a better path than trying to suppress all forks by dictatorship methods of the few currently in power. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Announcing Not-BitcoinXT https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize. ...real technical consensus... You mean the bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin wizards, who decided they have the right to tell everybody what to do, and who never got to grow up and are now angry at the world for not listening to them anymore? That technical consensus? Bitcoin is decentralized, but you are only allowed to do what we tell you to do. It's our pet project, we wrote code for it! That's what it all boils down to, all these dirty games of calling XT an alt-coin and censoring its posts, pretending to be Satoshi, sabotaging XT switch, etc.: How dare they not listen to Us The Smartest anymore?!!! Pathetic. The history will roll over you in a blink. The harder you try, the quicker it will go. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with anger and disrespect. Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is doing)? From my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage community's free choice instead. Nobody should be forced to do anything. Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin? Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to do what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical abilities. The developers Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an alternative. And the fear they show is most telling. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Eric, In the entire history of Bitcoin we've never attempted anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what's being proposed here. These concerns are understandable. What's hard to understand is why he, he and he get to decide what is more risky - hitting the limit or forking for larger blocks? Many people don't seem to think the upcoming hard fork is such a big risk. --- And why there's so much fear that your side might lose to XT in a honest battle? Why is it suddenly not let the best man win, but we are right, they are enemies of the state, go get them!!!? This is the same fear dictators have of honest elections. If you know you can't win in a honest battle, you start rigging the game. With recent Satoshi post even this list is not immune... I don't know if everybody had a chance to appreciate this quote by theymos yet: If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/) This is a quote worthy of Gaddafi. Fortunately, it's hard to be a dictator on the Internet, where you can't shoot people. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
