First, I'd like to point out that you once again take small paras where I state nothing
of any value and address those instead of attacking my main paras directly. Instead
of arguing where my reasoning is wrong, you just argue simple statements I make in
passing or in the preamble.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 06:33:52 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 25, 2017, 10:05:16 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on May 20, 2017, 07:25:12 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 20, 2017, 12:18:14 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on May 19, 2017, 09:16:35 AM

And we are talking about users that want/need to transact. So what you are imagining, is that users are going to download, themselves, new software of which they KNOW that it will not agree with what miners are producing, to stop their own ability to transact, and think that:
1) they will do so and put themselves out of the system that way
2) this will affect the miners in any way
is totally misguided.

Please cite in any of my prior statements where users or verifying node
operators are downloading ad implementing protocol violating rules.

This is the very idea of a UASF.

Again, I ask you cite where I stated anything that would need new rules
or new nodes. Everything I stated is occurring as we speak and has occurred
since 2010. I'm talking about verifying nodes, not UASF.

I know you are paranoid of UASF, but I'm not talking about that.

If there is only one centralized entity that makes the single software ran by miners and nodes alike, this is the central authority that decides by writing lines of code and pushing it to the miners (and also the verifying nodes which do the same). So, duh. That's why a system that has only one code base is centralized in the hands of the coders. First Satoshi, of course, and later, Core. That's no different from Microsoft being the central authority of what windows does, or Apple being the central authority of what Apple devices do.

The only choice left to the software user is: keep old version, or upgrade.

If everything is done by soft forks, moreover, the only thing that the software monopolist needs to do, is to convince >50% of the mining nodes to adopt the software. Then this soft fork is imposed upon the rest of the miners (or all their blocks get orphaned sooner or later). And the users, we don't care. Because soft forks are accepted by older nodes (even if they don't understand them).

==> soft forks are the way for the software monopolist to keep its power if it can push its upgrades to more than half of the miner pools.

This is why this has been "working" since 2010. Bitcoin was centralized on a software monopolist which was smart enough to use soft forks.

The purpose of Satoshi's client, and today's client (Core), was that there was a baseline
standard rule set that all other clients and systems could rely upon. That is why it is
considered the "reference client" (Dev Gavin understood this very well at the time).
At some point in the future, the reference client will never again be changed unless in
emergencies or serious bug fixes. The rules will be set in stone forever. Simply,
eventually the system will not need additions or etc since everything could be done
without needing direct modifications to the protocol. If the rules are changed after that
future point that are not to fix serious issues, it is always an attack on the base rules.

Satoshi intended the reference client to be "the center", because that is how all systems
within this universe work. There is no simple or complex system that exists that has no
center point. Your belief that this may be a problem (since 2010) is not the fault of
Satoshi or Core or the limitations of the human mind, but the limitations of this universe,
and because of that, your argument is distraction and is a waste of time. Thinking that the
reference client needs to also be decentralized is a perversion created from blind hate
and not logic. Satoshi understood there would always be a reference client that all other
system would build from and he understood that at a certain point that client would never
need changing (this contradicts emergent mechanisms).

There must be a center always, there is no long term stable system with two centers.
Even with galaxies or black holes which circle the other, one or both will always be
obliterated. Even if Core Client is supplanted by another, that new one becomes centralized
and then your argument continues ad infinitum. There will always be rules and they will
always be dictated through a single center client. That is natural. The protocol must be
represented in physical form and that form is by the reference client. Competition with
such system is not healthy, that is a human delusion, competition over time is slow
erosion/destruction. If you do not like it, you must change it from within the system,
not from the outside by competition. Your faith in human markets will be your ruin.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 06:33:52 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 25, 2017, 10:05:16 PM

Well I disagree with your interpretation of things.
Satsohi clearly thought those things were attacks.
Security experts would consider those things attacks.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 25, 2017, 10:05:16 PM

Your argument is comparable to "when hackers or malware enter into nuclear
power plants in order to implement code actions that will cause that facility
to go into an uncontrolled systematic meltdown, which will affect tens of
thousands of people somewhat immediately, and tens of millions to
hundredths of millions for multiple generations with diseases and
environmental effects, you are saying that isn't an attack on that nuclear
facility, humans, or the environment, but is only the "behavioral definition
of that nuclear system." With such a viewpoint of things, even murder of
another human being is the behavioral definition of humans, so according to
your argument, murder is natural and not an attack on that other individual
and their rights. From this point forward, no one should take any of your
arguments seriously or legitimately contemplate it's soundness.

You (and you're not alone) seems to have serious conceptual difficulties with the notion of a decentralized system. A decentralized system has no authority, has no laws, has no government, has no justice, has, in other words, no notion of "morality", of "good" and "bad", of "valid" and "invalid".

Yes, if we were living in a decentralized society, "murder" would not have any notion of good or bad. Like in nature, when the lion murders the antelope. It happens or it doesn't happen. Visibly, for the lion, killing the antelope was "good" ; for the antelope, we imagine that it was "bad", and nature being decentralized, there's no single authority to put the "bad" of the antelope over the "good" of the lion, and decide that it was globally bad.

This total absence of authority, of good and bad, and of valid and invalid, makes that the system has a dynamical behaviour.

You could say the same, in more restricted terms, of "market price". The price, in a market, is also something that is decentralized if it is an efficient and competitive market. There is no "valid" and "invalid" price. There is no "good" and "bad" price. The price is whatever the market determines, it is.

In the same way, in a decentralized system, whatever happens on the system, is what the system is doing, and that is not "good" or "bad". It can correspond, or deviate, from the PURPOSE you had IN MIND that the system WAS MADE FOR, but that's just illusion. The system is whatever it is doing. A "51% attack" is part of its possible behaviours, like "murder" is part of the possible behaviours of a system made of lions and antelopes.

From the moment you would like to define "good" and "bad" in such a system, you need to introduce centralization, because a single authority needs to even define what are the boundaries of "good" and "bad", and needs to have privileged force to impose this upon all its participants. You need, in other words, a government that makes rules, judges that verify the respect of the rules, and a police and prison to punish with force, those that want to transgress the rules.

If you say "majority vote", well, a 51% attack was a majority vote ! So clearly, if you want to define the evilness of an act you will need to chose between two possibilities:

1) there is a *dynamical* way to define good and bad, and whatever that dynamical way does, is what is good and bad (= decentralized system)
2) there is an undisputed central authority that is recognized by all to say what is good and bad (the King = centralized system) and who can enforce it.

I'm just explaining that in a true decentralized system, only what emerges dynamically as "good" and "bad", IS what is good and bad.

Your definition of a "true decentralized system" does not exist in this universe.
You are talking in philosophical ways that does not apply to what we are actually
dealing with in Bitcoin. We learn nothing from your statements other than your
personal philosophy of life.

This is not Bitcoin and never was. It can not be its future either, since that would defy
our reality now. Your definition of "decentralization" is comparable to the word "death".
Everything you listed also exists within the term "death" and what "death" may be.
Your definition of a true decentralized system is not what Satoshi was designing. He did
not want what you outlined because Satoshi was smart enough to understand that what
you outlined is philosophical garbage designed to argue things that are malicious and yet
portray them as a nature state. In reality, they defy our known rules and Bitcoin reality.

When you consider Satoshi to be like a King, that is an incorrect representation. Satoshi
was a clockmaker. He set the gears and wound the key, he then left us to see how the
clock would operate based upon the gear design and rules he preselected. If you dont like
that he selected rules that we must abide by, and instead you want to create your own
rules, even rules based on the will of the miners or markets, you are destroying Satoshis
clock and creating a monstrosity where everything becomes an illusion.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 06:33:52 AM

In bitcoin (and most crypto) that's the block chain. The block chain is what is good/true/valid. All the rest is bad/false/invalid. Simply because that's the fundamental assumption to be able to make a decentralized ledger. It's in there -> valid ; it's not in there -> not valid ; the rules that make the ledger are per definition valid, and whatever other rules that are not compatible with the actual sole ledger out there are dynamically determined to be false, EVEN if they told you that they should have been valid.

The OTHER way of doing things, is: the King. Here, the software monopolist, that tells you to use their software (because nobody else ever made anything else, or because everyone ACCEPTS the ultimate authority of the King). The software, being in only one version, is then what determines what is good and what is bad, what is valid and what is invalid.

I disagree with your thinking. It is much more complicated that how you convey it.

The reference client is the singularity that which our universal laws are based upon.
When you make arguments that the singularity is "the King" or etc, it is a lack of acceptance
of your position with this universe (or the Bitcoin system). You don't like your reality so you
wish to change the singularity. Satoshi intended the reference client to be singular and
contain the rules.

The truth is that your viewpoint is maladjusted. You do not understand what
decentralization actually means within Bitcoin. You have taken it to an extreme that
doesn't even actually exist within this universe and a way that Satoshi didnt want.
Satoshi envisioned the reference client to be frozen at a certain point for security
reasons. Bitcoin has nothing to do with governance; it is a digital currency first. Your
desire for change and emergent mechanism is governance based, not currency nor
security. You wish to make Bitcoin a political governmental system, instead of an
asset that was in opposition of the current financial worlds political governmental
cohort. You advocate subversion of one of the last special things in this world.
Almost all other things have become fully corrupted. Bitcoin still holds though.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 06:33:52 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 25, 2017, 10:05:16 PM

This argument type, in order to circumvent my argument, should be reexamined
since it leads down a road that is not healthy for Bitcoin, nor for life in general.
This thinking is neither creative nor genius, it is blatantly malicious to life and
intelligent advancements. It is no wonder you would take the position that PoW
is the only "power" system within Bitcoin, your thinking is already twisted.

It IS the only power in bitcoin, and this thinking is the fundamental basis of anarchist society. Personally, I'm in favour of it, but I measure its full implication of "immorality" (which is why I'm in favour of it, actually). But I think most people declaring themselves anarchist don't measure this to their full extend. It is a society without good or bad. But my political opinion doesn't matter.

What matters is that bitcoin is designed to be decentralized, so, without any central form of authority, and hence IS an anarchist system, if ever the code monopolist loses its monopoly. And then this is a natural and logical consequence. Whether that is desired, healthy, "good", "valid" or anything else with moral judgement, doesn't matter, and that's exactly the whole point of decentralization: no morality, but dynamics !

You could just as well say: "if gravity is keeping the moon on orbit that's OK, but if it makes me also fall off the mountain, I don't know if that is desirable". Well, it is part of the *dynamical laws* because gravity too, has no "morality" or no "validity". Whatever it does, is what gravity does.

Anarchism can bugger off. It has nothing to do with what Bitcoin is or it's
decentralization.

If anarchists wish to use the token for their own personal beliefs and etc, that is fine.
But if you wish to change the system into something that is not sustainable, just to
prove your personal beliefs are valid to yourself and society, that is an attack on the
current system, whether in your mind attacks exist or not. The truth is that you have
perverted what Satoshi wanted.

If Satoshi wanted to create an anarchistic governance model in Bitcoin or have a
decentralized reference client he could have done so by creating three systems with
three different rules and required that the networks miners always have the 3 in
competition at all times as per the rules of block building, where the 3 groups could
control their own rules and compete to gain majority over the 3 to determine the current
rule set for a set time interval (possibly till the next halving time). Instead, Satoshi
specifically stated he only wanted one main client and was opposed to having two or
more. It created an unstable system and he clearly understood that part.

Your beliefs and desire leads to Bitcoin's destruction. Continuing to argue that Bitcoin
isn't supposed to have any center is wrong and was never true. In fact, that is impossible.
You wish to change a working system to test an impossibility that Satoshi specifically
didnt want to manifest due to the problems it would cause.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 06:33:52 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 25, 2017, 10:05:16 PM

No, you are very incorrect in multiple areas.
Valid and Invalid is defined by the rules that which we all currently abide by
in Bitcoin. Saying that valid or invalid work is only based upon the whims of
what decision a miner builds on another miner's block, is very simplistic at
the least.

Well, the genius of bitcoin's designer was to build a system in which the rules he laid down (as King) became or were supposed to become a Nash equilibrium, which means, that deviating from it for a single entity was not in that entity's advantage, meaning that the rules were immutable. But it seems that Satoshi didn't understand the genius of his own design, so he still was thinking in terms of the King.

Bitcoin was laid down by its King and his heirs, Core, as long as they are/were the software monopolist. They are the central deciders on bitcoin. They could even decide, like Vitalik did on ethereum, to reverse some irreversible things. As such, bitcoin is like windows: a central software monopolist decides on everything. They also decide, through their software, what is valid and invalid, good and bad, right and wrong. Nobody can oppose them, because they make the only software that can run bitcoin. There's no difference between core on one hand, and windows and apple on the other. There are, indeed, rules of validity and of invalidity.

However, once that monopoly is gone in practice, who's going to decide what version of software is going to define what is valid and invalid ? What is now "valid" ? Where does that notion even come from ?

Bitcoin was designed to decide this by majority vote, majority of hash rate. So yes, the original design exactly decided that "validity" was exactly what miners decided, by building upon the blocks they "signed off" as valid. That's the core of bitcoin's PoW consensus mechanism. So that's the definition of "valid". If there are no software monopolists any more that can, also on a whim, decide this or that, because everybody NEEDS their software, then that's all that is left as a decision mechanism, because there's no central authority any more.

==> bitcoin becomes decentralized, and hence without "morals", without "good" and "bad" apart from its very own definition of good and bad: the block chain.

No, you are incorrect as usual. You live in a maladjusted parallel world.
Bitcoin was not designed to determine valid or invalid by majority of hash rate.
The rules of valid or invalid are already encoded with the protocol, miners follow that.
Miners either are in compliance or are in violation of that rule set. You are rewriting
history.

What you are talking about is a system that has no rules since the rules are always
in a liquid state. That would be consistent with your anarchist beliefs, so it is no wonder
this is your argument type. Satoshi never intended this, in fact he specifically stated that
Bitcoin would reach a point where the reference client would never need changing, thus
the rules are set. That fact alone contradicts your argument that Satoshi intended "Miner
voting" into the future. This is a lie crafted to subvert Bitcoin and weaken it's security.

Your argument is philosophical, contradicts universal laws, and is destructive to the
actual system Satoshi tried to design. Though it was not as perfect as he intended, with
patching and other things, the system still runs effectively and proves his overall argument
(though with some currently unknown elements, it could be entirely autonomous and sound).
You on the other hand are arguing things that will never be because if they did come true,
the system would just fall apart. You want human market intervention and redirection
of the protocol itself.

Your argument is just blind idealism. Again, you never address any of my points, only my
passing simple statements and then you pontificate upon your political ideologies.