Policy to fight against "miners control Bitcoin" narrative

[theymos]

With the S2X nonsense, several companies said that miners control Bitcoin. This belief is one of the most dangerous threats to Bitcoin, since if most people think that, then Bitcoin ends up controlled by only a handful of people. (See the wiki article for more elaboration.)

Although this issue is mentioned in a few places on bitcoin.org, I've been thinking that bitcoin.org should somehow act against this more than it is already. For example, maybe bitcoin.org should require that wallets and services sign a very simple pledge that acknowledges that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners in order to be linked from bitcoin.org. Or bitcoin.org could offer a free "Bitcoin basics" online course and certification which would have as one of its main goals getting this concept through to people.

Thoughts?

[luke-jr]

There is an opposite myth that developers control Bitcoin that probably could be educated against as well.

Insofar as wallets agreeing to something, I think the primary focus should be that the user/owner of the coins should decide anything that could compromise his funds.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

The whitepaper is to blame for all these dangerous beliefs. We seriously need to rewrite it, or produce a completely new whitepaper and call that the Bitcoin whitepaper.

The whitepaper is probably the only vaguely "technical" document that many people in positions of power and influence have read, it's what they base their understanding of Bitcoin on. And it's very easy to misunderstand in subtle ways. It's an extremely dangerous document for an ignorant person to read. For example, look at the following quote:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

When you read this, it's clear to anyone with knowledge of the historical context that Satoshi is talking about regular users as "nodes", as in people that run full nodes, the types of people in 2009 that were mining on CPUs. However someone reading that now would think differently, they would assume that this means that the miners are the ones through which any needed rules and incentives can be enforced. It reads as if the miners are the ones who decide what is and isn't valid.

I like the idea of offering a free basic course. Maybe it could be something as simple as an animated interactive experience that aims to teach Bitcoin users their "civic duty"? Lessons on how miners and developers don't control Bitcoin, and that Bitcoin is controlled by the users. We could explain that they should be careful about updating their software unless they fully understand what's been changed.

[seweso]

The battle wasn't over "miners being in control" vs "core dev's are in control". As those are both strawman arguments both sides made against each other. The real battle was (and maybe still is) extreme consensus vs market consensus.

Market consensus doesn't state miners are in control, but that they are rational invested actors who (for a lack of better ways) represent the market. Or should represent it.

And market consensus goes around forcing people to upgrade by....well....not being maximalistic about forks.

So, maybe if you don't use strawman arguments, you would have a little bit more faith in the beliefs of your opposition. I mean, take someones argument to an absurd conclusion, and sure....it will look absurd to you.

💁🏻‍♂️

[ghost]

@Cobra-Bitcoin doing things like changing the bitcoin white paper is a dumb PR move since it will give plenty of reasons for people to hate devs even more.

The problem is that devs and people that were against a block size increase demonized miners and created this narrative that they are goliath and that users/devs are David. Its their narratives that created the illusion they are these evil masterminds in power. Miners just mine for profit, and thats something that people used to believe.

[ekerstein]

I think an educational course is a great idea. Nothing wrong with that as long as the ideas within it are correct.

The pledge though strikes me as odd. "Pledges" have a bad connotation because of their historical links to dictators/autocrats throughout history who desire pledges of loyalty. And using that pledge to expose/shun people who disagree smacks of McCarthyism in a sense, where we're trying to rout out people who have the wrong "beliefs" among us.

I get that Bitcoin.org is trying to improve the community, but shunning businesses because they disagree with your beliefs doesn't sit well with me. I think it's important to admit that people can have legitimate disagreements about bitcoin, and still have good intentions / good will. Erasing them from your website smacks of ideological "cleansing" to me.

That's why I like the educational idea. I don't think everything has to be adversarial in the bitcoin community. Why not wage a battle of ideas with the people who disagree with you? Prove through reason why miners don't control bitcoin, rather than just trying to censor them from your site.

[illuzen]

Sounds like someone really wants to control how people think so as to prevent them from having "dangerous ideas". Users don't need your protection racket.

"Ideas are much more powerful than guns. We don't let our enemies have guns, so why should we let them have ideas?" - ???

[kmeisthax]

When you read this, it's clear to anyone with knowledge of the historical context that Satoshi is talking about regular users as "nodes", as in people that run full nodes

At the time of writing the whitepaper it was assumed that full nodes and miners were the same thing. It wasn't until after CPU mining became unprofitable that the ability to operate as a full node without mining was added. "Miner" wasn't a separate class until years after this paper was published. Satoshi specifically mentions them "voting with their CPU power", which only makes sense in the context of a Proof of Work algorithm as it was known then.

The problem with the whitepaper is that people read it like a god damned Bible instead of a technical proposal for some new technology whose full implications weren't yet known. Satoshi said "Hey, if you use hashcash on a transaction ledger you can build a digital cash system", and you guys said "HOLY SHIT IT'S THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS". Yes, both sides of the debate are guilty of this, because "The Holy Whitepaper" has some kind of ideological legitimacy that everyone wants to impart onto their own opinions. "Satoshi wanted small blocks" because X; NO! "Satoshi wanted large blocks" because Y! When in reality the only thing Satoshi said about block size was that it was an antispam mechanism; a specific mitigation against a particular attack on the network that would actually be harder to execute today than it was then.

Almost nobody in the Bitcoin community actually understands this. One side fires off proposals to reduce the block size more, which would render the network unusable; another side says we need gigabyte blocks yesterday. None of this is reasonable from an engineering standpoint; it's all shitty posturing by people who are dangerously and unhealthily invested in a technology which could die tomorrow for completely unrelated reasons to your stupid nerd turf war.

[ghost]

@kmeisthax no one cares about your opinion. the reason why people got into bitcoin was because of that white paper and its implementation

At the time of writing the whitepaper it was assumed that full nodes and miners were the same thing. It wasn't until after CPU mining became unprofitable that the ability to operate as a full node without mining was added

This is wrong since even satoshi predicted that there will be nodes running on data centers. So you are either ignorant or lying which in either case makes your opinion irrelevant. Here is what satoshi said:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[kmeisthax]

My opinion is "Stop treating the whitepaper as gospel, it is a technical document". Your response was to point out that I misinterpreted the holy texts and claim my opinion is irrelevant as a result.

[seandotau]

The whitepaper is a fantastic piece of history but is not the be all and end all. Things change, technology progresses, human thinking evolves. We should focus on presenting accurate non-biased information and be open and inclusive. Rewriting the whitepaper (not a great idea) won't solve the problem. It would exacerbate it.

[ghost]

@seandotau @kmeisthax bitcoin is one of the most revolutionary pieces of software EVER written, probably as important as the printing press. You clowns come here just a couple of years later and start to dizz it? No one even understands what bitcoin really is, yet they feel entitled to change it to things like Lightning network. The arrogance and hubris of some people is astounding

[theochino]

Rewriting the white paper need to happen. :) the title for starters. bitcoin is an intangible commodity therefore everything that comes next should be framed from that perspective ....

The miners do protect the network ... but do not control it.

[luke-jr]

@ekerstein My suggestion is to reduce the wallet "pledge" to merely a statement on user control. Then it's no longer merely a matter of politics or beliefs, but a matter of security (since a wallet maintained by people who thinks users shouldn't have control, is apt to act to deny users that control under some circumstances).

[seandotau]

@floreslorca Dude, no one's dissing anything or anyone. Agree it's revolutionary. We're on the same side. #CryptoNotFiat Anyway, all good bro. I'll leave it for your guys to sort out.

[LaurentMT]

I would never support the idea of a required pledge (whatever its form) before being able to use a bitcoin wallet. It sounds to me as antithetical to the core value of an open financial network.

I'm all in for educational materials provided to new users.

My 2 satoshis.

[luke-jr]

@LaurentMT The idea was for wallet providers to take the pledge, not users.

[LaurentMT]

@luke-jr Right. I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I misread Theymos's proposal. I guess that my over-interpretation translates a discomfort with the general idea of a pledge (even for wallets and services).

There's no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin has a social dimension and that there's an urgent need to take that into account (especially social attack vectors) but I think that we should "fight" this battle on another ground.

Outside of the polarized bitcoin "community", this website is still considered as a neutral source of reference about the protocol and the network. It's something much needed in this space. That specificity gives value to the site. It's an asset.

Social tools like pledges are always a tempting solution, especially during periods of crisis, but they aren't free...

[WuCris]

@theymos

This belief is one of the most dangerous threats to Bitcoin, since if most people think that, then Bitcoin ends up controlled by only a handful of people.

Says one of the hand full of people trying to control Bitcoin...

Let alone that hashrate isn't comprised of only a handful of people.

@Cobra-Bitcoin

The whitepaper is to blame for all these dangerous beliefs. We seriously need to rewrite it, or produce a completely new whitepaper and call that the Bitcoin whitepaper.

You wouldn't be the first dictator to try and rewrite history.

I like the idea of offering a free basic course. Maybe it could be something as simple as an animated interactive experience that aims to teach Bitcoin users their "civic duty"?

Sounds like one of them North Korean "re-education" camps.

[Atry]

POW is the biggest mistake that Satoshi made.

[juansgalt]

Re-writing the whitepaper and passing it off as 'the white paper' would be not be much different then launching an altcoin and pretending it is 'the true bitcoin'.

Re-writing history is a terrible idea.

That said, knowledge advances and to expect Satoshi to get everything right in one white paper is to ascend him to diety status. Until such evidence arises, I think its reasonable to treat him as mortal and thus fallible.

And thus, writing a second version of the white paper, from the lead developers who are guardians of the vision he initiated, seems like a reasonable idea.

But yeah, be honest about who wrote it and critique it honestly. It should go without saying that if big lies of the sort seem like a good idea, you might be straying down the wrong ... fork.