\[Proposal\] Cryptocoin Policy Virtual Conference
-
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
-
-
If someone wants to play God?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
[quote name=“lizhi” post=“34422” timestamp=“1384574894”]
If someone wants to play God?
[/quote]I really like you lizhi. You are obviously very intelligent. :)
I’d argue that the developers are not playing invisible wizard in the sky. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and incomprehensible. The developers are fallible, mortal, biased, and dare I point it out… human. They are entirely bound by the conventions of the community that they have created. If people choose to fork the code, and remove a feature they implement, everyone will vote with their admin rights: Either they will install the “official” client, or they will install the forked client with the removed feature. This will set the stage for a forked blockchain, and the miners will decide which one is valid. If the miners can override any decision they make, then this isn’t a theocracy, it’s a plutocracy, and the developers are just charitable people in an entirely uncharitable and ultimately selfish world. Satoshi understood this, and wrote about it in his whitepaper. The system will continue to work just as he envisioned it no matter what the Bitcoin Foundation does.
-
Alright, so… I say enough of this talk of problems. Let’s talk solutions.
Here, I’ve got a few.
Solution #1: Use a different address every time.
Solution #2: Use a different address every time.
Solution #3: Use a different address every time.There. That’s 3 completely viable solutions.
Want a better one? Change the protocol to enforce one of the three above solutions. Pick one. I don’t care which one.
It’s trivial. Is the address already in the blockchain? Yes? The transaction is invalid.
BOOM. Problem solved.
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“34427” timestamp=“1384577412”]
Alright, so… I say enough of this talk of problems. Let’s talk solutions.Here, I’ve got a few.
Solution #1: Use a different address every time.
Solution #2: Use a different address every time.
Solution #3: Use a different address every time.There. That’s 3 completely viable solutions.
Want a better one? Change the protocol to enforce one of the three above solutions. Pick one. I don’t care which one.
It’s trivial. Is the address already in the blockchain? Yes? The transaction is invalid.
BOOM. Problem solved.
[/quote]We’re sorry but you may only use an address generated by this address seed. Right. OOPS. – See I can be even more evil than they could. They wouldn’t even need to taint at this point. The police could run as many sting ops as they wanted at a click of a button. Hell, they could use metaseeds.
METASEED
Step 1: select a private key
Step 2: generate a private seed
Step 3: generate a series of public seeds
Step 4: allow/track only addresses generated by public seeds corresponding to the private seedOne simple degree of separation and you can’t tell if address seeds are marked or not.
