Craig Wright sued a dozen bitcoin developers, claiming damages because they owed him fiduciary responsibility. He wanted to force them to hardfork bitcoin to assign 111k bitcoin to him.
You're going down a ridiculous road. Nobody would write open source software if it entailed fiduciary responsibility. If you succeed, bitcoin dies.
Very good!
Wait a second, my bad maybe I should have looked better up the accurate definition of fiduciary responsibility.
Of course I don’t think btc devs can be legally sued, but what I believe is that they are morally responsible to the users for their work (this because in the last debate core/knots it was said “we don’t own anything to users”). Yes you contribute to open software, but this doesn’t mean that you have no responsibility whatsoever to the users (like informing them of your decision process and openly communicate with users).
What I don’t like is the core devs narrative of “we don’t own anything, we don’t have to explain anything to anybody, and if we you dont like what we are doing change software”. Good god man what happened to open and clear discussion? I get that devs wanna cater to the technical aspects of things, but how btc is too important to too many people not to engage in the “let’s explain to the public what we are attempting to do and let’s see what they think”
And what are the practical implications of their supposed "moral responsibility"? How do you want to sanction them if you think they neglect it?
Bitcoin is the epitome of individual responsibility. You can't go crying to some stranger on the internet who wrote code that you chose to run. You can't complain that you're not being communicated to in a way you prefer – getting information is your own responsibility. The mailing list is there, Delving is there, the GitHub project is open, and if you don't have time for all that, a bunch of busy contributors set aside time to produce a weekly newsletter to summarize everything for you, and if you don't even have time for that, they make a podcast version of the newsletter.
If you just don't want to try to understand the technical aspects, your opinions on technical aspects don't weigh particularly much. I'm sorry that's harsh, but bitcoin doesn't let us ignore harsh realities.
No, but you can tell them what software you want to run, and centralisation should be targeted everywhere with bitcoin, so we should complain of not being communicated to by the node software monopoly holder. Breaking down centralisation accumulation is how bitcoin survives/thrives
I don't want to "sanction" them in anyway, I am simply asking that the rational for decisions and the discussion is more open to everyone.
What does it mean when core says the "decision was mostly unanimous"? How many people were in favour and how many against? is this too much to ask to know? This is not about crying on the internet when ppl do somehting one does not agree with, this is about "can I know how and the reasons why you took this decision? and what paramenters were considered?". Because from watching core/knots debate on btc++ and reading everywhere core ppl are saying "this is strictly technical and has nothing to do with objective and morals". Am I allowed to say that as a node runner I have a problem with this, and would like decisions to be taken not only from a technical viewpoint but also from an objectivbe point? Can I say what I think when I contribute time and money (node) to the network?
I do spend lots of time looking for information on the matter, and I am exactly speaking up because I don't see a real discussion taking place. So all of a sudden all the "knots ppl" have gone retarded at the same time on the same issue? Don't you think that maybe there is something important that needs to be better discussed here? and why do you assume I don't agree with this because I don't understand the technical aspect?
> What does it mean when core says the "decision was mostly unanimous"?
That doesn't sound like something a Bitcoin Core contributor would say. Could you point me to where you saw that?
> How many people were in favour and how many against?
You keep asking for a vote tally, but that's not how it works. Bitcoin Core isn't like an appointed set of cardinals voting in a conclave. Core contributors engage in technical discussion to improve each other's understanding and see what concerns have the best technical arguments. That's why it's not useful for non-contributors to go into a PR and say "NACK".
> this is about "can I know how and the reasons why you took this decision? and what paramenters were considered?".
Well, good news – you can. I pointed out a number of places that you can go to follow the discussions.
> Can I say what I think when I contribute time and money (node) to the network?
Yes, please do. Don't even ask for permission. Nostr is great for that.
> Don't you think that maybe there is something important that needs to be better discussed here?
I've seen plenty of discussion going on on social media in the last few weeks. It has allowed me to explore my own views and improve my understanding. I'm sorry you're not able to find the discussion equally useful.
> and why do you assume I don't agree with this because I don't understand the technical aspect?
I assume you don't understand technical aspects because you keep asking for explanations that you can understand. I also don't see any technical arguments from you, only ideological ones. If you don't understand how bitcoin works, it's easy to go wrong by being "ideological". You want what I want – a decentralized bitcoin. We get there through making the right technical choices, not by preaching ideology. The choices you want would contribute to bitcoin's centralization.
1) I found it here (paragraph “how the decision was reached”. The exact wording is “….broad, though not perhaps, unanimous support). https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce
2) the vote tally it’s more about “as an external I’d like to have a better view how decisions are achieved, just to know, not to interfere”. It’s mostly a demand for openness and transparency. I get that devs want to be left alone to do their job, but more transparency can’t hurt? Again, simply to witness, not to interfere
3) yes how the decision was achieved was shared, but I feel only after strong opposition was voiced (might be wrong here)
4) I do find the discussion valuable, and I am simply asking for more of it. Perhaps I got defensive cause I got the perception that mind was made up and my viewpoint was dismissed as dumb. I’m sorry if I fell in that, I’m here to exchange ideas not to fight or insult
5) you are right, I’m definitely more comfortable in the ideological than the technical. I guess that like most in this debate I got scared as it seems like the technical is the only thing that matters and the ideological is not involved anymore. I think this is the main thing that got people up. But granted, I might be an idiot who is panicking over nothing because does not get the technical 100%, but I guess what worried some of us is a closeness and non-ideological approach.
Lastly, btc cannot not be messy and confusionary (because it is open to everyone), and I hope we all get through this together. Sometimes I see the point that we should open the gate and let the market decide, that’s the way we should achieve consensus together, organically and without barriers. But then I get scared if the market decides for btc being a not monetary network, and if this happen I’ll lose faith forever in finally having a world of sound money and cooperation. Maybe I’m too emotionally involved in this and my feelings cloud my judgement.
Anyway thanks a lot for the engagement man, much appreciated, and much love to you!
Thanks for engaging too! Like I said, we want the same thing.
I also know what it's like to be scared for Bitcoin's future, because I lived through the block size war when it genuinely felt like bitcoin was headed towards its end. Then I spent all my free time following Craig Wright back when there seemed to be a chance he could actually win and make bitcoin development all but illegal.
The fear and upset are real, because self-sovereign money is so important. We have this chance, and we must protect bitcoin at all cost.
But with respect, you're overreacting in this case, and you're in good company, because this is being encouraged by certain people.
I'm just a stranger on the internet, but I can tell you this with great conviction: if bitcoin goes bad, it will not be because of any changes Core makes to its OP_RETURN policy.
lol I love how our engagament has evolved!
Thanks for recognizing and reasurring a "younger" bitcoiner in distress, much appreciated man
I do hope me and others are overreacting over nothing, but I think the reason why this thing got so many ppl (who don't get the tech 100%) uneasy is the fact that some things (which have nothing to do with tecnhical aspects) stink.... I'm referring to:
- PR being locked, then unlocked to let someone submit ACK, then locked again
- ppl paid to submit PR withouth disclosing it upfront
- the focus being on miners wellbeing rather than nodes
- core smirking at oppostion during btc++ debate
- core devs saying things like "if you don't like what we are doing just change software", instead of reassuring ppl when they express concern for what you are doing
I don't know man, I do hope I am the retard here and my impressions are totally wrong. But anyway like many said, in the end this whole debate is good because it has fostered engagement and highlighted some issues to work on
> - PR being locked, then unlocked to let someone submit ACK, then locked again
This wasn't handled well, but a PR isn't a battleground for non-contributors to go in and say "NACK" in large numbers and then expect their comments to be tallied as a vote. It needed to be handled in some way.
> - ppl paid to submit PR withouth disclosing it upfront
This is influencer propaganda. We should be thankful that many talented people are able to collect a salary for their work. There is no ill intention – that's just something influencers want you to believe in order to make you angry.
> - the focus being on miners wellbeing rather than nodes
The focus is on bitcoin's well-being. Bloating the UTXO set dangerously impacts the cost of running a node, OP_RETURN avoids this cost. You may think you can avoid or reduce undesired data in the blockchain, but this is demonstrably wrong (look at the blocks you're storing). You can choose between bloating the UTXO set and not bloating the UTXO set.
> - core smirking at oppostion during btc++ debate
I'm sorry you found someone's demeanor offensive. That's not a technical argument. A smirk is bad, but probably not as bad as the accusations of corruption and hidden agendas that a lot of bitcoin developers face these days. This person shouldn't have smirked, but this gesture probably didn't come out of nowhere; people are upset and frustrated.
> - core devs saying things like "if you don't like what we are doing just change software", instead of reassuring ppl when they express concern for what you are doing
It's difficult to communicate effectively. I thought Greg Maxwell did a decent job here: nevent1qqsgsc3lfarzl6sjrnrewxxl88fme3ztewhrtf4tp5u56l7uhuxzdmcr9hwpf
People are complex and difficult. When it comes to bitcoin, we need to focus on technical arguments to protect bitcoin's decentralization, and not choose our actions based on who has offended us.
On the "offending topic" and ppl being complex, I understand that devs are way better at coding and technical aspects, rather than communication. But you gotta admit that when someone is pretty shit at comunicating it has its impact (quite hard to completely discern the technical content from the way it is presented). Maybe core devs should also dedicate some time on how to better convey info, because it is a very imprtant aspect too
Anyway thanks a lot for your time man, I'm re-considering my stance here. As already mentioned I'm very emotionally invested in this and my emotions might have clouded my judgement initially!
Last question to you: if it turns out this change creates harmful consequences, can we simply roll it back withouth any issue? In this case the only way to roll it back would be through consensus change, correct? I'm all for experimenting to see what works best, but it is pretty hammered in my head that any change to btc is risky and should be heavily weighted as it might generated unforseen consequences
Bitcoin's developers have long been criticized for not being the best communicators. You should have seen how it was when we tried to get SegWit activated. Eventually they published a pretty good FAQ. Later we got the OpTech newsletter etc. It's a lot better today compared to then, but it's probably not good enough. Developer time is scarce, and it would be nice to let them just work instead of becoming expert communicators able to convey nuanced technical concepts to regular people.
> if it turns out this change creates harmful consequences, can we simply roll it back withouth any issue?
Yes, it's just a mempool policy thing. Rolling back a mempool policy change does not involve a consensus change, just a new software release with adjusted mempool policy, and then encourage people to switch to it.
That said, this stuff is very well understood by now (we literally had the first OP_RETURN war in 2014, not much is new) – there isn't really any risk of harm.
I can understand your point about letting devs code and not having to convey their decisions, but I don't think this approach is feasible (so ppl should blindly trust what few devs do withouth any explanation?). Also I don't believe it is a 100% technical question only, like in all things there are more factors at play.
On this note I did some more thinking and what still puzzles me is this:
1) it seems the only way to stop spams is to change what a valid transaction is at the consensus level. This was discussed in the past (2 years ago PR was submitted if I am correct) but it was rejected as "controversial". But the PR that was just pushed now in a hurry (remove filters) is also clearly controversial. So why does it work in one way but not the other? And why have we given up dicussing it at the consensus level?
2) I don't understand why we are so worried about fees for miners, isn't the block reward more than enough for a few years? is any miner going to stop mining because the fees are too low now? Also, I thought the difficulty adjustment was there to self-regulate the mining ecosystem, why are we now intervening to give miners bigger fees?
3) Hypothetically, let's say that with this core 29v it does happens that spam transaction fill blocks and drive up fees, making it harder and more expensive for monmey transactions to get in. At this point will core "rewind" and reinstate the filter or discuss change at consensus level? Because from their statements it seems that in this case their stance would be "oh well btc is a database for whatever the market wants it to be, so if it is for jpeg and spamsn then let it be it"
Cheers
> I can understand your point about letting devs code and not having to convey their decisions, but I don't think this approach is feasible (so ppl should blindly trust what few devs do withouth any explanation?)
I didn't say that at all. Developers do debate and explain, but my understanding was that you cannot find explanations that are understandable to you. I was saying explaining nuanced technical matters in a way that is understandable to someone without a sufficient technical understanding is difficult.
I don't mean to be rude, but I can't spend a lot more time on this right now, and we seem to be going in circles where I thought we were maybe reaching some sort of amicable end. Thanks for the exchange, but I'll cut it off here, and wish you well.
There is a nice and relatively accessible compilation of questions and answers here which you may find useful: https://stacker.news/items/978404
As a final word: please do not assume bad faith among bitcoin developers. They keep bitcoin working for us but it can be grueling work, especially when they have to face horrible accusations from social media.
