\[Proposal\] Cryptocoin Policy Virtual Conference
-
IRC on freenode #virtconf, created.
We are for all cryptos, all local currencies.
We have four aspects:
Video
Stream
Blog
Meets[quote name=“mnstrcck” post=“34361” timestamp=“1384541619”]
What I want to know is why there is a Bitcoin Foundation and who the fuck cares what they say? I mean, were these guys elected by every single Bitcoin user at their appointment? It always starts with a committee, centralization, government - read Animal Farm for a good overview.
[/quote]The Bitcoin Foundation exists because the technology is obscure to the average person, much like Congress exists because people don’t have law degrees.
We’re going to change that.
-
I’d argue that Bitcoin is well on its way out of the obscurity range - it should be now that the consideration of disbanding the foundation is taken seriously. At some point in the very near future Bitcoin will become vernacular, and at that point in time it will be a mistreatment of the protocol to let any one single body of people represent it officially.
-
[quote name=“chrisj” post=“34352” timestamp=“1384533901”]
[quote author=zerodrama link=topic=4429.msg34350#msg34350 date=1384532947]
I suggest we end the Bitcoin Foundation’s domination of cryptocoin policy.Coin validation and tainting are the worst ideas to come out of that space.
This is the sort of BS I’d expect from CNBC and Erin Burnett.
Any concept that makes one person’s coin less valid than another will cause a socioeconomic split between turtlenecks and sootfaces.
[/quote]For anyone who doesn’t know I believe Zero is referring to this: [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0[/url]
This makes Alt coins all the more relevant and important though I am also concerned about this not being a very peaceful few years.
[/quote]Well if that is what Zero is reffering to, then I have a difficult time understanding what the anger is over.
Here’s what Mike said:
[quote]
I don’t have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I’m aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I’m interested in new insights or thoughts. You can review the bitcointalk thread on decentralised crime fighting to get a feel for what has already been said.I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for. Of course I know that won’t be easy.
[/quote]Policy is what got us here today (things like the BIP), and a lot more policy will need to be put into place to move forward. Mike is specifically calling for a coherent policy on redlisting schemes. This is ultimately a good thing, as the public needs to weigh in on the direction they want the client taken in so the developers can take it in that direction.
This is an opportunity to influence the direction of crypto-currency’s evolution, and it shouldn’t be squandered. Mike is doing the public a great service by asking for open discussion and encouraging the foundation to arrive at conclusions and put forth de-facto standards.
[quote author=mnstrcck link=topic=4429.msg34361#msg34361 date=1384541619]
What I want to know is why there is a Bitcoin Foundation and who the fuck cares what they say? I mean, were these guys elected by every single Bitcoin user at their appointment? It always starts with a committee, centralization, government - read Animal Farm for a good overview.
[/quote]Bitcoin Foundation exists to standardize, protect and promote the use of Bitcoin for the benefit of users worldwide. It’s comprised of people who were elected by people who cared to vote, which forms a representative democracy.
I, for one, give a large fuck what they say because the same people who are saying it are the same people who are writing the code. How important is that? Pretty important, but not more important that the Bitcoin constitution.
Did you know Bitcoin has a constitution by which we agree to be bound? It’s the blockchain protocol. If you change that protocol, you’re amending the constitution, and you accept coins on the blockchain that’s formed through that constitution, you’ve allowed yourself to be bound by it’s bylaws. It’s because we all collectively agree to be bound that the system works. One of the bylaws of the constitution is that people who deviate from it’s bylaws will not be tolerated. Another bylaw is that consensus must be reached. A third is that you can verify anyone else’s contribution for correctness.
What Mike is proposing isn’t a constitutional amendment. He’s simply calling for a discussion of policy, and the ramifications of doing so. He knows it’s a slippery slope to go down, but he feels it’s important enough to derive official policy concerning despite the fact that it’s going to be really hard to do so, and for that he should be commended and supported.
[quote]
I suggest we end the Bitcoin Foundation’s domination of cryptocoin policy.
[/quote]End it? Sure! Go ahead! Get together a team more qualified than the existing developers, and code like the wind my friend! If you know someone more qualified to work on Bitcoin than Gavin and Mike, PLEASE have them fork the Github project!!! PLEASE!!!
[quote]
Coin validation and tainting are the worst ideas to come out of that space.
[/quote]Coin validation never came out of that space. You’ve got it completely backwards. Colored coins have been discussed for a long time now, and it’s the recent development of a particularly nefarious group COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the Bitcoin foundation that is prompting this discussion, namely these assholes: [url=http://www.coinvalidation.com/]http://www.coinvalidation.com/[/url]
Debate is healthy. Innovation shouldn’t be stifled. He’s asking for insights or new ideas. The foundation is reacting to a changing landscape in which people are trying to do things like impact fungibility, and Mike is leading the charge to rally the troops and get the ball rolling concerning what the official response of the community as decided by the community will be to these developments. Sure, he has his own opinions, which may be controversial, but so far these guys have been the ones who have made all the major steps forward with regards to Bitcoin, and unless you’ve got some wizkid locked away and you’re holding him hostage, I don’t see a better solution than the one we have, which happens to be working REALLY well.
-
[quote name=“mnstrcck” post=“34370” timestamp=“1384545802”]
I’d argue that Bitcoin is well on its way out of the obscurity range - it should be now that the consideration of disbanding the foundation is taken seriously. At some point in the very near future Bitcoin will become vernacular, and at that point in time it will be a mistreatment of the protocol to let any one single body of people represent it officially.
[/quote]I mean down to the code. As long as you have to be a nuclear reactor scientist to add to the code, you’ll need benevolent dictators.
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“34374” timestamp=“1384546987”]
Well if that is what Zero is reffering to, then I have a difficult time understanding what the anger is over.Here’s what Mike said:
[quote]
I don’t have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I’m aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I’m interested in new insights or thoughts. You can review the bitcointalk thread on decentralised crime fighting to get a feel for what has already been said.I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for. Of course I know that won’t be easy.
[/quote]Policy is what got us here today (things like the BIP), and a lot more policy will need to be put into place to move forward. Mike is specifically calling for a coherent policy on redlisting schemes. This is ultimately a good thing, as the public needs to weigh in on the direction they want the client taken in so the developers can take it in that direction.
[/quote]He’s whitewashing promotion as discussion. I’m not waiting for the train to leave the station.
[quote]
This is an opportunity to influence the direction of crypto-currency’s evolution, and it shouldn’t be squandered. Mike is doing the public a great service by asking for open discussion and encouraging the foundation to arrive at conclusions and put forth de-facto standards.[quote author=mnstrcck link=topic=4429.msg34361#msg34361 date=1384541619]
What I want to know is why there is a Bitcoin Foundation and who the fuck cares what they say? I mean, were these guys elected by every single Bitcoin user at their appointment? It always starts with a committee, centralization, government - read Animal Farm for a good overview.
[/quote]Bitcoin Foundation exists to standardize, protect and promote the use of Bitcoin for the benefit of users worldwide. It’s comprised of people who were elected by people who cared to vote, which forms a representative democracy.
[/quote]It exists because the development process is slow, because the code itself is an unreadable mess. The Foundation is a crutch we have because of bad development decisions.
[quote]
I, for one, give a large fuck what they say because the same people who are saying it are the same people who are writing the code. How important is that? Pretty important, but not more important that the Bitcoin constitution.Did you know Bitcoin has a constitution by which we agree to be bound? It’s the blockchain protocol. If you change that protocol, you’re amending the constitution, and you accept coins on the blockchain that’s formed through that constitution, you’ve allowed yourself to be bound by it’s bylaws. It’s because we all collectively agree to be bound that the system works. One of the bylaws of the constitution is that people who deviate from it’s bylaws will not be tolerated. Another bylaw is that consensus must be reached. A third is that you can verify anyone else’s contribution for correctness.
What Mike is proposing isn’t a constitutional amendment. He’s simply calling for a discussion of policy, and the ramifications of doing so. He knows it’s a slippery slope to go down, but he feels it’s important enough to derive official policy concerning despite the fact that it’s going to be really hard to do so, and for that he should be commended and supported.
[/quote]He’s two microns away from “Are you still beating your wife?”
[quote]
[quote]
I suggest we end the Bitcoin Foundation’s domination of cryptocoin policy.
[/quote]End it? Sure! Go ahead! Get together a team more qualified than the existing developers, and code like the wind my friend! If you know someone more qualified to work on Bitcoin than Gavin and Mike, PLEASE have them fork the Github project!!! PLEASE!!!
[/quote]This isn’t about forking Bitcoin, it’s about the effort and people put into all the different coins and also that local currencies also exist.
[quote]
[quote]
Coin validation and tainting are the worst ideas to come out of that space.
[/quote]Coin validation never came out of that space. You’ve got it completely backwards. Colored coins have been discussed for a long time now, and it’s the recent development of a particularly nefarious group COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the Bitcoin foundation that is prompting this discussion, namely these assholes: [url=http://www.coinvalidation.com/]http://www.coinvalidation.com/[/url]
[/quote]The anti-diversity attitude is also all over the github discussion pages. There is something wrong when we’re promoting a distributed currency and we need to use C/C++ lords and kings to make sure it works.
[quote]
Debate is healthy. Innovation shouldn’t be stifled. He’s asking for insights or new ideas. The foundation is reacting to a changing landscape in which people are trying to do things like impact fungibility, and Mike is leading the charge to rally the troops and get the ball rolling concerning what the official response of the community as decided by the community will be to these developments. Sure, he has his own opinions, which may be controversial, but so far these guys have been the ones who have made all the major steps forward with regards to Bitcoin, and unless you’ve got some wizkid locked away and you’re holding him hostage, I don’t see a better solution than the one we have, which happens to be working REALLY well.
[/quote]He already decided the topic. It’s no different from Coke vs Pepsi. As for alternatives, I tried working in C/C++ with boost. Screw that. Python, node.js, and XUL is what I will use. How the hell we didn’t use these to begin with, I’ll never figure out.
-
BTW, Kevlar thx for your thoughts on this. Honestly I think most of are on the same side on this, I just think we need some fundamental changes to the development process.
-
[quote name="mnstrcck]
I’d argue that Bitcoin is well on its way out of the obscurity range - it should be now that the consideration of disbanding the foundation is taken seriously.[/quote]I don’t think anyone’s actually considering that, let alone taking it seriously. There’s no good reason for it.
[quote author=mnstrcck" post=“34370” timestamp=“1384545802”]
At some point in the very near future Bitcoin will become vernacular, and at that point in time it will be a mistreatment of the protocol to let any one single body of people represent it officially.
[/quote]We’re not in any danger of that actually happening. The code remains open source. Anyone can represent it officially, and many people do. A defacto governing body is just that, and it’s as ‘official’ as any other defacto governing body. The argument to disband it because they represent the interests of Bitcoin is a non-argument when anyone can represent it’s interests to whatever degree they choose. Bitcoin remains ownerless, and that’s difficult to change because it’s inherent in the protocol that manipulating the blockchain requires, at last I checked, about a billion dollars to pull off a 51% attack, and rising every day.
When someone with a billion dollars exploits a 51% attack, they will officially represent it, and that’s when we should get out the pitchforks and torches. Until then, Mike and Gavin are doing a fantastic job advancing the protocol while incorporating public direction, and unless you’ve got someone better for the job, they should almost certainly keep doing it.
-
A complicated system promotes bureaucracy.
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“34385” timestamp=“1384548471”]
Bitcoin remains ownerless, and that’s difficult to change because it’s inherent in the protocol that manipulating the blockchain requires, at last I checked, about a billion dollars to pull off a 51% attack, and rising every day.
[/quote]Who owns the printing press has freedom of the press. The code needs to be translated to a language that allows participation in the development.
[quote]
When someone with a billion dollars exploits a 51% attack, they will officially represent it, and that’s when we should get out the pitchforks and torches. Until then, Mike and Gavin are doing a fantastic job advancing the protocol while incorporating public direction, and unless you’ve got someone better for the job, they should almost certainly keep doing it.
[/quote]Like I said, I’m not waiting. Founding fathers fought a war over 1% tax. (and some bloody incidents). Not waiting until it becomes intractable.
-
Kevlar, I wish I had more time to respond, but I’m about to run outside…
So, my view is this:
1. Bitcoin Foundation will eventually, if not already, become THE representation of Bitcoin in the public sphere [as zerodrama mentioned, it was put together to function as a voice for the protocol]. This is bad because…
2. Centralization. A defacto governing body is still a defacto governing body. I remember your standpoint on ACP, so I am not sure how this is not the same, if not worse. My feeling, and historically logical understanding, is that given enough time this weak [human run leadership is inherently weak] group is going to follow the steps of all other well-meaning groups given enough outside pressure/personal greed issues/fear.
This is why, from how I see it, the response to this suggestion has been so great. Because there is a huge possibility for implementations like this to be enacted, whether publicly debated or not.
-
[quote name=“mnstrcck” post=“34390” timestamp=“1384550291”]
Kevlar, I wish I had more time to respond, but I’m about to run outside…So, my view is this:
1. Bitcoin Foundation will eventually, if not already, become THE representation of Bitcoin in the public sphere [as zerodrama mentioned, it was put together to function as a voice for the protocol]. This is bad because…
2. Centralization. A defacto governing body is still a defacto governing body. I remember your standpoint on ACP, so I am not sure how this is not the same, if not worse. My feeling, and historically logical understanding, is that given enough time this weak [human run leadership is inherently weak] group is going to follow the steps of all other well-meaning groups given enough outside pressure/personal greed issues/fear.
This is why, from how I see it, the response to this suggestion has been so great. Because there is a huge possibility for implementations like this to be enacted, whether publicly debated or not.
[/quote]It’s why I’m using XUL for my my coin-neutral client.
-
[quote name=“mnstrcck” post=“34390” timestamp=“1384550291”]
Kevlar, I wish I had more time to respond, but I’m about to run outside…So, my view is this:
1. Bitcoin Foundation will eventually, if not already, become THE representation of Bitcoin in the public sphere [as zerodrama mentioned, it was put together to function as a voice for the protocol]. This is bad because…
[/quote]That’s silly. The representation of Bitcoin in the public sphere is the blockchain itself. In order for what you’re saying to be true, they would have to take control of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin Foundation DOES represent the POLICIES of the DEVELOPERS of Bitcoin, as well it should, since they are in fact the guys making the decisions at present. This is in fact a good thing, and it beats the hell out of having some random guy in his apartment making all the decisions without any formal discourse or standard for acceptance before a policy change (no offence, Bushstar).
[quote]
2. Centralization. A defacto governing body is still a defacto governing body. I remember your standpoint on ACP, so I am not sure how this is not the same, if not worse. My feeling, and historically logical understanding, is that given enough time this weak [human run leadership is inherently weak] group is going to follow the steps of all other well-meaning groups given enough outside pressure/personal greed issues/fear.
[/quote]I see where your confusion lies. ACP was a modification to the protocol itself, and directly impacted the workings of the Blockchain and how consensus among miners was reached. Colored coins aren’t comparable at all. They don’t impact the blockchain at all. They don’t modify the protocol. They don’t change how consensus is reached, especially in a trustless environment. ACP does away with trustless environments and requires trust of a central authority. Colored coins does not, and the Bitcoin Foundation definitely doesn’t.
[quote]
This is why, from how I see it, the response to this suggestion has been so great. Because there is a huge possibility for implementations like this to be enacted, whether publicly debated or not.
[/quote]Let me be very clear about this: [u][i][b]IT WILL, AND YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IT. Nor SHOULD you be able to.[/b][/i][/u]
It’s technology. The blockchain is technology, but what’s more, it’s a technology stack which ANYONE can build upon. The nature of an open source technology stack is anyone can come along and build new technology on top of it… like colored coins. Information wants to be free. People should be allowed to innovate with new technology. You can’t stop them, and you shouldn’t either, because if you COULD, that means they COULD stop you from innovating AROUND them. The whole ecosystem functions because information wants to be free, and it’s through this freedom that we aspire to greatness. Shut down that freedom, and you stifle innovation.
What you should be objecting to, and rightly so, is inclusion of this technology as policy within the defacto standard of client by the defacto governing body who is responsible for such decisions. What Mike is calling for (despite what Zero claims) is discussion of that very policy, and guess what… That’s what’s happening! Zero, for all his relevant points, is incorrect in his assertion that the foundation has implemented any policy regarding this.
You’re rebelling against a system that works rather well, but nothing will come of it. You’re not going to convince Mike and Gavin that they should stop working on Bitcoin. What you should be doing is joining the conversation, and providing insight and new ideas for:
#1: Policy which will protect the freedom of Bitcoin and it’s users, encourage it’s adoption, and further it’s goal of revolutionizing currency.
#2: Technology which will make services like CoinValidation.com ineffectual and obsolete. That’s exactly what Mike is asking for, and already solutions are starting to emerge and be adopted by the important players.What’s happening isn’t bad, it’s GREAT. It’s the best thing that could be happening, and it’s happening at the best time it could, in the best way it could.
-
ACP and the Bitcoin Foundation crutch (the information of which required a leaker) are both symptoms of the disconnect that the Feathercoin community has been trying to correct.
I hate ACP about as much as anyone. Sure, the blockchain attackers have ignored FTC since it was added. But the real problem is the complexity. It’s the hook that takes us to a disaster.
Also I have serious problems with the idea that you need a massive consensus to make changes. It’s kinda why there are so many alts right now. We need some kind of meta-consensus that validates local decisions.
-
We need to identify any updates to the ongoing bitcoin or Litecoin code updates and fixes. Make sure what Feathercoin doesn’t need gets an “off switch” coded back upstream.
I haven’t seen anything too drastic so far in 0.8.5. I be interested to see what the priority changes are? and should any other new features be off for Feathercoin?
-
[quote name=“zerodrama” post=“34396” timestamp=“1384556788”]
ACP and the Bitcoin Foundation crutch (the information of which required a leaker) are both symptoms of the disconnect that the Feathercoin community has been trying to correct.
[/quote]You’re right. And to date, The Bitcoin Foundation has done about a thousand times better job of incorporating public opinion into it’s policy than ACP ever has. If I had to choose between ACP, and the Bitcoin Foundation for which standards body I wanted to make decisions for the future of my currency, you better believe I’m going to accept the BIP process over the benign dictator process!
[quote]
I hate ACP about as much as anyone. Sure, the blockchain attackers have ignored FTC since it was added. But the real problem is the complexity. It’s the hook that takes us to a disaster.
[/quote]I’ve not seen the complexity of ACP lead to any disasters yet… hell the Blockchain protocol is way more complex than ACP. It’s the process by which ACP came about that takes us into disaster, namely a lack of through discussion of alternative solutions, and the deviation from core values.
See, if Bitcoin were run the same way Feathercoin was, Mike would be working on the redlisting feature right now (although he’d end up hiring Sunny King to actually implement it) and would release it as the official client despite concerns from the community, without a through discussion of alternatives, without peer review of the code, and he would maintain the list of red listed inputs himself, making every client connect to his server by default.
He’s not doing that. He’s calling for a discussion of policy, and adding his own ideas to that discussion.
[quote]
Also I have serious problems with the idea that you need a massive consensus to make changes. It’s kinda why there are so many alts right now. We need some kind of meta-consensus that validates local decisions.
[/quote]You don’t need “massive consensus”, you need “a little more than half”, aka 51%. If a consensus of less than half is what you desire, then it’s pretty trivial to launch your own blockchain which implements those rules, although I have a hard time understanding the utility of such a thing.
-
[quote]
I hate ACP about as much as anyone. Sure, the blockchain attackers have ignored FTC since it was added. But the real problem is the complexity. It’s the hook that takes us to a disaster. [/quote]I personally think it was the difficulty change damping that has had the biggest effect in stopping the attacks / Multi-pool hash changeovers, by making them too expensive. It was the effectively equivalent to increasing the hashrate.
ACP (mainly) prevented attackers making an historic blockchain, and stealing previously mined coins.
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“34400” timestamp=“1384557868”]
I’ve not seen the complexity of ACP lead to any disasters yet… hell the Blockchain protocol is way more complex than ACP. It’s the process by which ACP came about that takes us into disaster, namely a lack of through discussion of alternative solutions, and the deviation from core values.
[/quote]That process was brought on by the suicidal One Troo Coin cult. The complexity I am referring to is the fact that even I, as someone who can occasionally kick off a Linux kernel tweak, can’t even tell where one feature begins and where one ends in the code.
Free Software also means readability. If I can’t map it, how can I modify it?
[quote]
See, if Bitcoin were run the same way Feathercoin was, Mike would be working on the redlisting feature right now (although he’d end up hiring Sunny King to actually implement it) and would release it as the official client despite concerns from the community, without a through discussion of alternatives, without peer review of the code, and he would maintain the list of red listed inputs himself, making every client connect to his server by default.
[/quote]How can you peer review code that you can’t even navigate unless you were in it from the beginning? No one was prevented from coding an alternative, it’s the code itself that is a hindrance.
[quote]
He’s not doing that. He’s calling for a discussion of policy, and adding his own ideas to that discussion.
[/quote]In a forum no non-members can view.
[quote]
[quote]
Also I have serious problems with the idea that you need a massive consensus to make changes. It’s kinda why there are so many alts right now. We need some kind of meta-consensus that validates local decisions.
[/quote]You don’t need “massive consensus”, you need “a little more than half”, aka 51%. If a consensus of less than half is what you desire, then it’s pretty trivial to launch your own blockchain which implements those rules, although I have a hard time understanding the utility of such a thing.
[/quote]On day one that’s 1000 people. One week later it’s 1 million, except only a fraction can actually edit the code. The choice of C/C++/Qt over Python/node.js/XUL is an instant guild maker.
-
[quote name=“zerodrama” post=“34403” timestamp=“1384559571”]
[quote author=Kevlar link=topic=4429.msg34400#msg34400 date=1384557868]
I’ve not seen the complexity of ACP lead to any disasters yet… hell the Blockchain protocol is way more complex than ACP. It’s the process by which ACP came about that takes us into disaster, namely a lack of through discussion of alternative solutions, and the deviation from core values.
[/quote]That process was brought on by the suicidal One Troo Coin cult. The complexity I am referring to is the fact that even I, as someone who can occasionally kick off a Linux kernel tweak, can’t even tell where one feature begins and where one ends in the code.
Free Software also means readability. If I can’t map it, how can I modify it?
[/quote]Free software means one of two things: Free as in gratis (like free beer), and free as in libre (like free speech). The first one means you don’t have to pay for it, and the second one means you’re not compelled to follow any rules for it’s use. No warranty of usability, quality, or maintainability is implied, and such assessments are highly subjective in any case.
Bitcoin is most definately free as in both gratis, and libre. The first is true because you don’t have to pay for it, and the second is true because you can rewrite the entire thing in your language of choice without fear of repercussion. Feathercoin qualifies as well.
[quote]
[quote]
See, if Bitcoin were run the same way Feathercoin was, Mike would be working on the redlisting feature right now (although he’d end up hiring Sunny King to actually implement it) and would release it as the official client despite concerns from the community, without a through discussion of alternatives, without peer review of the code, and he would maintain the list of red listed inputs himself, making every client connect to his server by default.
[/quote]How can you peer review code that you can’t even navigate unless you were in it from the beginning? No one was prevented from coding an alternative, it’s the code itself that is a hindrance.
[/quote]Experience and skill of course. I prefer languages that express themselves cleanly and elegantly, but I have on numerous occasion found myself porting a piece of code to another language which doesn’t offer the same elegance, but allows me to express exactly what I want the machine to do. This is the trade off you accept with C++.
[quote]
[quote]
He’s not doing that. He’s calling for a discussion of policy, and adding his own ideas to that discussion.
[/quote]In a forum no non-members can view.
[/quote]That’s correct. It’s an internal discussion that they’re having, and only members are invited to the discussion.
This is the process they prefer because otherwise it would be impossible to carry it forward if the unwashed masses could participate. So what? What’s wrong with that? Let them discuss unhindered by the fanboi bullshit. You act like policy is being made and enacted. It isn’t.
Did you know Feathercoin has a forum that no non-members can view? Heck, 80% the discussions I have with Feathercoin administrators happen over Skype or PM, to which you are definitely not invited to participate in.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Also I have serious problems with the idea that you need a massive consensus to make changes. It’s kinda why there are so many alts right now. We need some kind of meta-consensus that validates local decisions.
[/quote]You don’t need “massive consensus”, you need “a little more than half”, aka 51%. If a consensus of less than half is what you desire, then it’s pretty trivial to launch your own blockchain which implements those rules, although I have a hard time understanding the utility of such a thing.
[/quote]On day one that’s 1000 people. One week later it’s 1 million, except only a fraction can actually edit the code. The choice of C/C++/Qt over Python/node.js/XUL is an instant guild maker.
[/quote]So is the choice of Java/JavaFX, which Mike chose for his client. So is the choice of Javascript, which Blockchain.info chose for their client. So is the choice of Erlang, which BitEN chose for their client. So is the choice of Ruby, which Lian chose for his client. And Python for the bitcoin-python library, and Node.js for BitcoinJS. All of these have two things in common with the original QT wallet: All of them support the Bitcoin open source protocol, and all of them we’re written in the language of choice of the developer who implemented them. Yet none of them are anywhere near as popular as the QT wallet. I see no reason to believe your solution will be any different, but I commend your commitment to reinventing the Bitcoin client using yet another technology stack which you feel passionately about.
-
1. I am working to make it possible for all cryptos to stop having to reinvent. That’s why I chose XUL.
2. That discussion has no business being behind the scenes. You can’t claim working policy process and remove people from the process.
3. The notion of unwashed masses is the attitude that makes me want to make participation easier.
4. Bitcoin dominance is protected by the mess of code that only early users are familiar with.Would you tell a surgeon, “You just have no experience with compilers, you really shouldn’t comment on how well they follow your intentions.”?
-
[quote name=“zerodrama” post=“34412” timestamp=“1384565404”]
1. I am working to make it possible for all cryptos to stop having to reinvent. That’s why I chose XUL.
[/quote]Ambitious! More power to you. I’d love to review your plan and see how it differs from BitcoinJS.
[quote]
2. That discussion has no business being behind the scenes. You can’t claim working policy process and remove people from the process.
[/quote]Of course it does. Members can discuss whatever the fuck they want among themselves. That’s one of the privileges of membership. There’s no reason to invite outside discussion until the policy process has begun. This is NOT the policy process, this is an internal discussion among foundation members. Policy process looks VERY different with the Bitcoin foundation, and is a very open process that looks VERY different than Mike asking for an open discussion on an internal mailing list. Specifically it looks like the BIP. You’ve confused the internal mailing list for a BIP. This isn’t a BIP. It’s an internal discussion.
[quote]
3. The notion of unwashed masses is the attitude that makes me want to make participation easier.
[/quote]Good! I hope the anger fuels your fire and you reenact the story Prometheus bringing said fire to the people, and meritocracies be damned!
[quote]
4. Bitcoin dominance is protected by the mess of code that only early users are familiar with.
[/quote]No it isn’t, it’s protected by the adoption of the protocol. The client is irrelevant, and many exist in many languages. BitcoinJ, for instance, is REALLY well constructed and follows a great number of best practices. I found it REALLY easy to pull it apart and repurpose. If the QT wallet code were to be lost forever tomorrow, Bitcoin would still be equally protected.
[quote]
Would you tell a surgeon, “You just have no experience with compilers, you really shouldn’t comment on how well they follow your intentions.”?
[/quote]You bet I would, especially if myself and another developer were discussing the finer points of Just-In-Time evaluation, and he kept trying demand that my compiler should be able to draw blood from a vein.
-
Merry Ad Hoc Cracies will not be merry for long. -> https://wikileaks.org/tpp/#QQC12
