- Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities? Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes? If you had to choose, which takes priority? Freedom? Or ensuring everyone agrees?
Freedom is a vital component of bitcoin, given that the very nature of the said network is decentralized. Everyone gets the job done and does what everyone needs to do without the need to look at what everyone else is doing while reaching a consensus at some point if the community needs to decide for an important matter. In a real-world society setup, the ruling party doesn't always ensure that everyone is happy and everyone agrees.
- Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement? Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress? Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well? How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade? Do they have cause to complain? Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?
Knowing that the whole setup is completely decentralized and not everyone is being affected by a single party,
I believe it's okay to hardfork at a 95% agreement, 6% to veto the process
if and only if the whole network is
fully decentralized. If it isn't, I wouldn't be okay with that as anyone with a large number of miners can simply do as they please and halt progress that the majority of the community wants to have. As for softforks, so long as they are still following the general protocol, it's fine if they don't want to upgrade as again, freedom is a vital part of bitcoin.
Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change? Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
Going back to real-world scenarios, you don't expect a 100% vote onto something as other people will still have different opinions and POVs regarding a very important matter. Bitcoin is a decentralized network, and not one single party can ever urge the whole network to vote for their agenda no matter how 'perfect' and how well-planned that agenda is. The
majority rule in a decentralized network, I believe, is the perfect approach for consensus, and the 95% agreement 6% veto setup is already fair enough for the whole community.
- Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible? Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to? Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules? And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
It isn't immoral, IMO as it's just preserving the integrity of the data being stored, transferred, and relayed within the network. That's why consensus should be reached first before moving forward towards a new different client (if that's the case). Freedom is a vital component of the bitcoin network but then again, it is not the only component that makes the network strong.
- If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces? Do you keep up to date with the latest changes? Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on? Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
I cannot speak for this as I don't and won't have a plan to setup a full node unless I have my own miners and a large array of spare hard drives and computers in my arsenal.
- Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network? Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions? Do you think some developers have too much influence? Should there be a larger number of dev teams? Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?
At times, yes, I believe that Core dev team is somewhat in control of what happens in the bitcoin network. People have the options to go around and explore what version of bitcoin do they think will be beneficial to them, but since bitcoin is where the money's at and where most people dwell, the question of who controls what in the code somewhat became political, up to an extent that it's not about bitcoin anymore but rather about who
should be in control of making code changes. If bitcoin never reached this big, I wonder if we will still be having some questions on who replaces what on the code or whether we'll have a talk on who the devs are, at all.