Decentralization claim

[ghost]

I noticed the announcement for the education committee says the github process is "decentralized." Allowing anyone to contribute means it is open source but that is not the same thing as decentralization. The Github process is open source but there are generally decision-makers who resolve conflicts. Often there is a set of unwritten rules and an unknown hierarchy which is generally not known to the general public. Some participants are given power to ban other users and I have seen this threat used several times. I don't believe this type of system fits the definition of decentralization and the original announcement should remove that claim since it will confuse people as to the definition of "decentralization."

[nikosbentenitis]

I see your point. Our aim is to have a process that is "more decentralized" or "less centralized" than existing processes. Definitely, we have not reached "decentralization". We should be using this term more carefully in the future.

[mdhaze]

The recognition of this subtlety serves a purpose in illustrating how far we may be from decentralization, previously unrecognized in this context.

[sressler]

I agree I think it's a good point. But I'd say we are functioning as a typical "open source" project where one or a couple of people have the privileges to do the merge and close issues. However I wouldn't call Nikos our "Linus" ;-) and the group on the whole operates quite openly and comes to consensus almost always. It is also decentralized in the sense that anyone can make changes (which are effectively suggested changes) and then a discussion takes place and then concensus is or is not reached.

I'd say that is a pretty decentralized process but technically you are correct in that not anyone can simply do the pull it's a pull request that follows a normal github process. This is also a little odd using github in that we are not producing code but documents and some of us are github newbies ;-) Sandy

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, mdhaze notifications@github.com wrote:

The recognition of this subtlety serves a purpose in illustrating how far we may be from decentralization, previously unrecognized in this context.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50350101 .

Sandy Ressler

http://www.sandyressler.com @sressler

http://www.bitcoininplainenglish.com @btcplainenglish

sressler at acm.org

[ghost]

@nikosbentenitis What you are trying to do is be more inclusive. This has nothing to with decentralization and it is the same system we have now as Bitcoin.org is already on github. There are many disagreements over what is published now but many people gave up trying to change it because the people who are in charge are generally unwilling to listen. they often reply by calling people "trolls" and threaten to ban them. This is not more or less decentralized than the current system, it is not decentralization at all. @mdhaze the issue has been raised many times but most people gave up raising the issue and dropped out of the process because it is a waste of time. A small number of people are in charge of the web sites and they keep them under privacy and make all kinds of vague, unsubstantiated claims about who actually runs the sites. The fact that you are not aware of this shows how the people who run the show simply ignore the issue and seek to shut out opinions they don't agree with. Actually I am surprised I was not called a "troll" for raising the issue in the first place.

[ghost]

@sressler - The issue of doing this stuff on github has been raised many times. My impression is that the point is to prevent newbies from participating. I noticed this when the issue got raised on BitcoinTalk all the developers told people to go to Github to resolve the issues. When people went to github and tried to raise the issues they were told Github was not the place for political disputes. Newbies are sent into a back hole and the old timers who run the show are perfectly happy about the situation because they don't want to hear from newbies. It is hard enough to try to educate people about Bitcoin without the Foundation going around misrepresenting the definition of decentralization so they can pursue some agenda.

[sressler]

Well the only agenda here is to try and create as open and inclusive a place for people that want to create useful content to educate people about Bitcoin. I think you're point about decentralization is a good one and the description should be modified. I also think we should spend our time creating educational content. The move to github was done to facilitate content production not to prevent anyone from participating, quite the reverse it was meant to encourage participation. Onward. Sandy

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:52 AM, MillyBitcoin notifications@github.com wrote:

@sressler https://github.com/sressler - The issue of doing this stuff on github has been raised many times. My impression is that the point is to prevent newbies from participating. I noticed this when the issue got raised on BitcoinTalk all the developers told people to go to Github to resolve the issues. When people went to github and tried to raise the issues they were told Github was not the place for political disputes. Newbies are sent into a back hole and the old timers who run the show are perfectly happy about the situation because they don't want to hear from newbies. It is hard enough to try to educate people about Bitcoin without the Foundation going around misrepresenting the definition of decentralization so they can pursue some agenda.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50357238 .

Sandy Ressler

http://www.sandyressler.com @sressler

http://www.bitcoininplainenglish.com @btcplainenglish

sressler at acm.org

[mdhaze]

@MillyBitcoin I've certainly noted the ridiculous behavior you mentioned and for the most part ignored it and other drama. More importantly in product of educational documents is insuring technical accuracy and eliminating commercial influences. Examples are of course, not slanting ed docs toward specific industry members or even mentioning specific companies. Technical accuracy, let's just say a while back when someone started a document explaining mining I seriously cringed (as a long time bitcoin miner).

However accuracy is achieved in technical documents, it's not exactly by a democratic voting process. Github was I think potentially a step forward. No, let me revise that. Originally there was something by Elizabeth about sumitting a group of completed documents to the TBF board for "approval" before "publishing". Going a different direction than that was a huge step forward, regardless of whether the method was Github or other. Github with open collaboration is potentially good. I guess I really don't know whether the process is potentially subject to degradation technical quality or pervertable to commercial interests.

[ghost]

@mdhaze - I don't see how you can separate out the political issues from the web site. It is not purely technical and the issues are not purely commercial interests either. There are all sorts of people claiming they know how "bitcoin was meant to be used" or "satoshi meant ..." and then you have people claiming governments and banks will be toppled and how Bitcoin will end all wars. There are all sorts of agendas and points of dispute over educational materials.

Before you do anything you should explain what the process is if you want newbies to participate. This hand-waiving nonsense where everything is unwritten and called a "community" web site, "decentralized" or whatever other buzzwords are used doesn't cut it.

[David-R-Allen]

@MillyBitcoin - Got it, I think.

Now on to the suggestions. Did I get this right? Either A. Call this Github system what it is (centralized, hierarchy, political) ... or B. Move the Education Committee's discussion back to a non-technical forum for free-form discussion. or C. Something you are about to tell us but have been waiting for us to ask :-)

Milly, I doubt you are trolling, but can we get to your point as we want to hear your suggestions. Seriously.

[ghost]

@David-R-Allen - If you are going to do the site under Github then you should explicitly explain what the process is rather than using some vague term like "decentralized" or "community developed" etc. that is my suggestion. I would supply a draft except that I don't know what the real process is.

[David-R-Allen]

@MillyBitcoin - You sound knowledgeable. Take a look https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io and offer some suggestions directly. We can certainly use the help.

[mdhaze]

@David-R-Allen @MillyBitcoin I agree. This is not the website. There is little relation between any of the major bitcoin websites and this github series.

@sressler I think we should promote translating the fundamental Satoshi document into a variety of languages as a priority.

[sressler]

Sounds like a reasonable request...as I speak only English can't help but I agree the "committee" could put out a "Call for Translators" and also scour the web there may be some translations in existence...don't know..Sandy

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM, mdhaze notifications@github.com wrote:

@David-R-Allen https://github.com/David-R-Allen @MillyBitcoin https://github.com/MillyBitcoin I agree. This is not the website. There is little relation between any of the major bitcoin websites and this github series.

@sressler https://github.com/sressler I think we should promote translating the fundamental Satoshi document into a variety of languages as a priority.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50382553 .

Sandy Ressler

http://www.sandyressler.com @sressler

http://www.bitcoininplainenglish.com @btcplainenglish

sressler at acm.org

[ghost]

some translation links are at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46624.0

[mdhaze]

Good Find!

I'm seeing Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew and Italian.

Given recent events in South America, one in Spanish would be a real contribution.

I could help some with that, but my decent ability to communicate with the Mexicans around here is a far cry from translating a paper of this sort.

This reminds me of a truth from Vinge's fiction book, Gravity's Rainbow. A distinguished, supersmart guy is woken up when his incurable disease is curable, some decades into the future. He's put into a classroom with 8-12 year olds and can barely keep up. Reason is their mindset isn't so much to produce but to find and discover links between info.

ED should do more of the latter, make it easy for a user to discover quality.

[ghost]

here is an audio (in English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yYrYCE4i1c

[ghost]

https://crowdin.net/project/bitcoin has German, Italian, Norwegian and slovenian

[ghost]

It looks like someone is working on Spanish but the link to the translation is password protected: http://todosobrebitcoins.blogspot.mx/p/paper-bitcoin-es.html

[ABISprotocol]

The use of github involves a more decentralized process as it allows for a greater degree of collaboration and the potential for utilizing or referencing different repositories. It is notable that the bitcoin repository and the collaboration that goes into that is done through github and that bitcoin full client (Core, etc) software is also found on sourceforge and elsewhere. @DavidJohnstonCEO has presented a theory of decentralized applications, which is worth reading. People have been known to use github to mirror things either before or after their authors have removed (or been pressured into removing) content ~ one example is here. You may also want to read a past discussion on additional measures taken to decentralize bitcoin.org (which involves github collaboration for management of its content), use of gitian, and more. Github uses native git as a virtual machine. Github is meaningful in part because of how it eases the process of changes to open and public repositories, notably via forks and pull requests. It should go without saying, but the notion of decentralization means that what you are working with is decentralized, and that signifies that decentralized content should be disseminated in a way that allows you to access it from more than one location and in more than one way or manner. Gitian has been recommended by skilled coders -- example here from @diracdeltas -- as a means to ensure that the information you are seeing is the product of independently reproducible build processes and is in fact what you are intending to access.

Here's an example of a Github mirror (in this case, for HTTPS Everywhere). If you want to contribute to help the decentralization process, one way you could do that is by mirroring content you like, wherever and however you want to mirror it, whether the content you want to mirror is from the Education Committee, or bitcoin.org, or whatever else catches your fancy.

As you probably already know, Education Committee content is the result of a collaborative github process, but it's also available via a website which displays github content in an easy-to-navigate format. It is also important to note that some of our content has been reproduced via a post on the Bitcoin Foundation website, which in part, provides links to the Education Committee Github content as well as providing content that was originally produced on Github, and making it more visible via the use of Bitcoin Foundation servers. This is an example of a process involving the decentralizing of content with respect to its location and accessibility. If you need guidance for how to mirror content of a website, here's how to do it by using httrack and here's some more information on mirroring, via Global Voices Advocacy.

The Education Committee system of collaboration on Github and publishing the content elsewhere (which can be complemented by those who choose to either republish or mirror the content on servers / sites that they manage) is a good example of decentralization of content at work.

(Note to @MillyBitcoin: Please correct your spelling of decentralization as shown in the title of this issue. Currently it appears as "Dectralization," which is incorrect.)

[ghost]

You said... .....the Bitcoin Foundation is tainted and I would never use any of their material directly without a thorough review. .....

So some people like me lounge around and correct what we think are errors, such as letting trust slip into a trustless protocol. Then just for fun, to see if it's really gone under, the final and distributed documents can be checked to see if they have errors that, of course, increase the profits or the cash holdings of BF industry members. That's a perfectly blunt assessment of the situation.

Some people around here do know quite a bit about this stuff. I doubt if you do any good lecturing them. Take one of the documents and see if you find things you don't like. By the way, I don't care what you like or don't like. I care about the arguments by which you or someone arrives at a position and whether it is based on facts and substance.

Think of it this way. Say (hypothetical) I correct a document that has an error, that being defined by the Satoshi Nakamoto paper, and then later, before the thing is finalized, it's changed back. This is a public repository and if the matter was material, ZOOM! it goes to reddit and bitcointalk, etc. Of course other times, I have suggested things like "leave all company names out of materials generated" because otherwise the little ED would find themselves a year or two from now likely having advocated for the yet-to-come-MtGox2.

Have fun!

[bg002h]

Some background info: Sirius "owns" bitcoin.orghttp://bitcoin.org https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Sirius

Lots of people contribute to the site, anyone can submit a pull request. https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us

Decentralized and centralized are ends of a spectrum. Picking where on that spectrum a project should be born, live, and die is a practical choice for most projects...and it's a choice frequently dictated by the size of the available volunteer worker pool.

On Aug 2, 2014, at 19:09, MillyBitcoin notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@ABISprotocolhttps://github.com/ABISprotocol - Collaboration and decentralization are 2 different things. Using terms like "more decentralized" is almost like saying "more pregnant." In no, way, shape or form is this process decentralized. What you are doing is presenting a centralized system and misrepresenting it by calling decentralized. In this way it can be claimed that any decision is a some sort of consensus when it really is not. If you have followed centralized organizations such as ICANN they pull this trick all the time. major religions do the same thing by claiming God is really running things and they are just working for God.

If you want an open source, highly collaborative education committee there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that it involves a web site that is controlled by a single entity prevents it from ever being decentralized. For example, you may note that Bitcoin.orghttp://Bitcoin.org is owned by "WhoisGuard, Inc." I have seen a series of unverified claims that a single person owns the domain and has some sort of agreement with an unnamed list of developers. That agreement could end at any moment and the owner, without permission from anyone else, could point the site somewhere else.

Mirroring the site elsewhere also has nothing to do with decentralization. Associating the whole thing with the Bitcoin Foundation makes the situation worse. They sometimes misrepresent themselves and sometimes make themselves appear as if they represent more than they actually represent and their credibility is often lacking. I am not a member and I have no plans to be a member. If people are claiming that this github system is somehow decentralized then their credibly approaches zero and I would certainly not use their educational material.

If you read the paper you pointed out decentralization has to with the decision-making process and it does not matter if everyone in the world collaborates if the final decision is made by a small group who has choke points such as the github merge permission or control over a domain name.

As for me, I already decided last year when I saw all the problems with the Foundation to develop my own resources. I hired a professional video agency to make a sequel to the WeUseCoins video where I focus on why people would want to use Bitcoin and I hired a voice over artist who does HSBC commercials. I will be launching bitcoin.mehttp://bitcoin.me in a few weeks and it will have the video along with educational material that is more in-depth than what you see at the other introductory sites. I will look over the educational material here but. frankly, the Bitcoin Foundation is tainted and I would never use any of their material directly without a thorough review. I would never just mirror their stuff. Not that it is all bad but people have agendas, unusual points of view, and a number of people involved in the Foundation are extremely irresponsible. Now some want to run around and claim their educational material was created in a decentralized process? No way.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50978330.

[ghost]

@bg002h - I understand the claimed background of bitcoin.org. A wiki post relating to a screen name is not verification that any normal person would accept and whatever agreements that are in place are unknown to most. From what I can tell "Sirius" is associated with a number of extremely irresponsible people. Anyone who takes the times time to understand the github process can submit a pull request. then there is some completely unknown process that results in some decision whether it gets published. Whatever this process is from the best that I can tell it is a small group of people and it is influenced by a number of factors, including a commercial influence. As for Sirius, suppose he dies? What happens then? Does anybody know? Maybe he does have an agreement with "WhoisGuard, Inc." but there is no way to verify that. In any case a posting on an outdated Wiki or Bitcointalk.org means nothing.

You are correct that there is no process that is completely decentralized so there is a spectrum of decentralization. Since the Github process is not described anywhere (and I suspect the actual process changes from project to project depending on the personalities involved) there is no way to really judge, is there? From what I can gather it is a very, very small group of people who make the decisions and they basically disregard the user base at large. Some projects more than others but you can't really tell until you spend a lot of time (or waste a lot of time). You should see all the people that have cycled through ICANN, spent months trying to contribute, and then dropped out. I mean hundreds and hundreds of dedicated people who all wasted their time. Every year there is a new crop and ICANN just keeps getting larger and larger.

[bg002h]

I'm not being philosophical. Most projects are too tiny to be truly decentralized -- if no free workers, no decentralization...the real questions are: "who is invited to contribute work (everyone)?, are the volunteer contributions accepted on merit?, and how many people make up the community consensus on accepting contributions?

There's no conspiracy behind who owns bitcoin.orghttp://bitcoin.org (the old link has been there for years to pre-answer the perennial newbie questions and conspiracy theories). Sorry, but it's just a large group of volunteers making the site and a guy that has to remember to pay for the renewal. Nothing interesting, novel, or decentralized. Just folks getting stuff done...

On Aug 2, 2014, at 20:02, MillyBitcoin notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@bg002hhttps://github.com/bg002h - I understand the claimed background of bitcoin.orghttp://bitcoin.org. A wiki post relating to a screen name is not verification that any normal person would accept and whatever agreements that are in place are unknown to most. From what I can tell "Sirius" is associated with a number of extremely irresponsible people. Anyone who takes the times time to understand the github process can submit a pull request. then there is some completely unknown process that results in some decision whether it gets published. Whatever this process is from the best that I can tell it is a small group of people and it is influenced by a number of factors, including a commercial influence. As for Sirius, suppose he dies? What happens then? Does anybody know? Maybe he does have an agreement with "WhoisGuard, Inc." but there is no way to verify that. In any case a posting on an outdated Wiki or Bitcointalk.orghttp://Bitcointalk.org means nothing.

You are correct that there is no process that is completely decentralized so there is a spectrum of decentralization. Since the Github process is not described anywhere (and I suspect the actual process changes from project to project depending on the personalities involved) there is no way to really judge, is there? From what I can gather it is a very, very small group of people who make the decisions and they basically disregard the user base at large. Some projects more than others but you can't really tell until you spend a lot of time (or waste a lot of time). You should see all the people that have cycled through ICANN, spent months trying to contribute, and then dropped out. I mean hundreds and hundreds of dedicated people who all wasted their time. Every year there is a new crop and ICANN just keeps getting larger and larger.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50979145.

[ghost]

@bg002h - I said there is no stated process. I also said collaboration does not mean decentralization and that something run by the Foundation would not be decentralized. Any such claim would have political rather than factual motives. Some people seem to agree while other make arguments that collaboration means it is decentralized to a certain extent but they cannot point to any actual process that can be analyzed.

Bitcoin.org is run by people who have certain view about certain things and that is not clear to the average visitor or how decisions are made as to what to post. There are no known future plans when the site eventually changes hands. I do not agree with certain things posted at Bitcoin.org and at BitcoinFoundation.org but I have no standing to make changes there, I can only make changes at web sites I own and operate. I have made suggestions in the past to the Foundation. Some of my suggestions have been accepted and other not but I have no idea of the process involved to make the final decisions.

[ABISprotocol]

@MillyBitcoin Maybe you could publish a blog post on your own server about how you think content should be decentralized and some examples of steps (or a step-by-step) to guide people to a process which you think resembles or is equal to decentralization at wherever you are going to define it in the spectrum of things. If you do that, please post a link to that here (maybe even with a demonstration of how you have decentralized your content management, creation, etc for the hypothetical post alluded to in this comment). If you aren't going to do that, please re-read my prior comment in this thread.

(p.s.: suggestions I've seen relating to bitcoin.org include stuff like: "(put it on) a dedicated server that accepts commands only when signed by N-of-M parties, inside a cage locked by padlocks with keys held by independent parties, with a SSL certificate issued by an authority that has multiple parties watch it every step of the way into that server" and "put the hash of the source tar.gz and the binaries in the blockchain..." If you want a decentralized process, I think you need to make it easy for many people to do it... just saying. httrack seems like a pretty handy tool... but what do I know?) ~ eom ~

[Scramjet2]

Haven't spoke up in a while but may as well throw in my 2 cents. I do not think you can have something accepted all over the world without some standardization which means some centralization (ie collaboration). It seems decentralized for Bitcoin should mean a currency not under government control. In order to alleviate member concerns, maybe the Foundation can better describe the process on how it accepts or rejects members' suggestions. On Aug 2, 2014 9:23 PM, "ABIS" notifications@github.com wrote:

@MillyBitcoin Maybe you could publish a blog post on your own server about how you think content should be decentralized and some examples of steps (or a step-by-step) to guide people to a process which you think resembles or is equal to decentralization at wherever you are going to define it in the spectrum of things. If you do that, please post a link to that here. If you aren't going to do that, please re-read my prior comment.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ABISprotocol]

I should also note that I generally recommend that people migrate away from typical website-based tools for a variety of reasons. I've elucidated on this elsewhere (in other fora relating to bitcoin), but as is often the case, people's interest in convenience and ease of access seems to discourage many from pursuit of decentralization, although what I'll call "harsh realities" will eventually cause many people not so inclined to use decentralized / distributed currencies and decentralized markets and systems, to change their minds ~ to do so, or at the very least, to be presented with easy and beneficial ways to do so. But being as Github allows you to use it from command line, I don't see Github as "just a website..." as an example of what I am getting at here, most exchanges and brokerages require you access them through a website. They are not decentralized and also don't provide you with the ability to interact with them through a command line. Their content is not shared peer-to-peer and the content and structure of such sites generally can not be found in a variety of "nodes" or other places. This means that such sites present points of vulnerability. Decentralized market tools like Cloakcoin / Onemarket, OpenBazaar, and NightTrader are classic examples of decentralization at work. Tools like Ethereum and Maidsafe provide alternative networks which transcend the typical experience which most users have (which is typically centralized and focused on ordinary websites). That's the decentralization model and process at work, as we see such decentralization tools emerge. As is immediately apparent, though, each such tool typically has a standard (centralized-type) website, which is intended to draw attention to and spread use of the tool. This presents a point of vulnerability and possible failure, but that does not mean that typical websites should not be used as part of a larger process to generate and disseminate information.

[ghost]

Web site content cannot be decentralized. Decentralization has to do with the decision-making process, not the ability collaborate, suggest changes, or mirror content. While it is a good idea to have as much collaboration as possible it cannot be labeled as decentralized just because of that. It is a centralized project by the Bitcoin Foundation that is allowing many people to collaborate. Why don't people just call it that and stop trying to use buzzwords and claim it is "decentralized?" Every process does not have to be decentralized just because it is associated with Bitcoin.

As a first step, if you can't even identify and write down the decision-making process then you can make no claims of decentralization one way or the other. I think the real story is that the Foundation is tainted so the Foundation want to claim the content they disseminate is not really theirs.

[mdhaze]

I would add to these comments, that political voting is a clear example of decentralization of decision making, yet it has central points which are clearly possible points of failure. Everyone knows about those and watches out for people stuffing the ballot boxes or engaging in other forms of corruption.

Yet in the area of intellectual content, both programming and concept development, majority voting does not establish merit. Never. No more than a majority of scientists believing one thing or another makes it true.

Wikipedia presents a similar case, come to think of it. As Colin suggests, there must be a "larger process". Specifically regarding the discussion of BT ED materials, various measures are available. For example, the number of downloads of a given document produced by the ED may be viewed against the number of downloads for a document on bitcoin from Youtube. Or from another site. In many cases, the larger process is the market.

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:32 AM, ABIS notifications@github.com wrote:

I should also note that I generally recommend that people migrate away from typical website-based tools for a variety of reasons. I've elucidated on this elsewhere (in other fora relating to bitcoin), but as is often the case, people's interest in convenience and ease of access seems to discourage many from pursuit of decentralization, although what I'll call "harsh realities" will eventually cause many people not so inclined to use decentralized / distributed currencies and decentralized markets and systems, to change their minds ~ to do so, or at the very least, to be presented with easy and beneficial ways to do so. But being as Github allows you to use it from command line https://hub.github.com/, I don't see Github as "just a website..." as an example of what I am getting at here, most exchanges and brokerages require you access them through a website. They are not decentralized and also don't provide you with the ability to interact with them through a comma nd line. Their content is not shared peer-to-peer and the content and structure of such sites generally can not be found in a variety of "nodes" or other places. This means that such sites present points of vulnerability. Decentralized market tools like Cloakcoin / Onemarket, OpenBazaar, and NightTrader are classic examples of decentralization at work. Tools like Ethereum and Maidsafe provide alternative networks which transcend the typical experience which most users have (which is typically centralized and focused on ordinary websites). That's the decentralization model and process at work, as we see such decentralization tools emerge. As is immediately apparent, though, each such tool typically has a standard (centralized-type) website, which is intended to draw attention to and spread use of the tool. This presents a point of vulnerability and possible failure, but that does not mean that typical websites should not be used as part of a larger process to generate an d dissem inate information.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcfoundationedcom/btcfoundationedcom.github.io/issues/26#issuecomment-50983262 .

[bg002h]

Want to move towards decentralization? Fork it and work on your fork. You can make your own version of bitcoin.org and host it on bitcorn.org and have complete centralized control yourself and as you get more volunteers you can learn how to collaborate with them...then one of them can fork and host bitcion.org, etc.

It's the multiple forkings that decentralize something, not collaboration per fork.

On Aug 3, 2014, at 07:54, MillyBitcoin notifications@github.com wrote:

Web site content cannot be decentralized. Decentralization has to do with the decision-making process, not the ability collaborate, suggest changes, or mirror content. While it is a good idea to have as much collaboration as possible it cannot be labeled as decentralized just because of that. It is a centralized project by the Bitcoin Foundation that is allowing many people to collaborate. Why don't people just call it that and stop trying to use buzzwords and claim it is "decentralized?" Every process does not have to be decentralized just because it is associated with Bitcoin.

As a first step, if you can't even identify and write down the decision-making process then you can make no claims of decentralization one way or the other. I think the real story is that the Foundation is tainted so the Foundation want to claim the content they disseminate is not really theirs.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[mdhaze]

@MillyBitcoin Next you'll be claiming Facebook isn't decentralized. The Internet isn't decentralized. Because of DNS. A long time ago this type of argumentation was compared to arguing "how many angels could stand on the head of a pin." Some things have meaning, some have purpose and some have neither.

[ghost]

bg002h - Yes, I agree with that. There are many entities working on educational materials and the good ones will naturally filter to the top. Trying to claim yours is better because of some false claim of decentralization is not the way to go. My "fork" is going to be at Bitcoin.me. I will be reviewing the material posted here and anyone is welcome to review the material I have posted there and use it for whatever.

@mdhaze - You are also correct, I believe facebook is not decentralized and the Internet is not decentralized because of DNS. Domain names are a natural choke point and ICANN has seized control. I am a "domainer" and I use that natural choke point to make a profit just like ICANN uses it to gain power and tax people without giving them any representation. It is decentralized in some aspects because DNS is not required and the amount of control over DNS does have some limitations. However, it is nothing like the decentralization that is there with Bitcoin. As for your "head on a pin" comment, that is just one of the ad hominem attacks where you try to disparage my comments without actually addressing the points I raised.

[ghost]

I think this discussion shows that an in-depth description/definition/discussion of the term "decentralization" is needed as part of the educational materials.

[DOSHOSTNET]

This has been an enjoyable discussion and I have learned much. I do have some thoughts to add:

1) A collaboration to create an educational document on what decentralization is within technology and within organizational structure/decision making is a wonderful idea. I will begin my contributions for this today and hope to have a deliverable at some point in August.

2) "Every process does not have to be decentralized just because it is associated with Bitcoin." I believe this is an important statement to consider. If the argument to do everything decentralized comes up at every attempt to begin a task I fear not much will be accomplished. There are many ways to have your voice heard if decision makers are ignoring you in a centralized process. I have had to employ this many times throughout my career and have found failures and success. Because of the ability to voice my concerns and to engage in leadership I am comfortable with the currently presented technologies to contribute to the work of the education committee. I would enjoy new decentralized (ethereum‬) tools as they complete development but that is for another discussion.

3) I subscribe to the thought that Now is an important time for Bitcoin and the legal/regulatory actions that are happening within the United States. Education is an important role and process by which Bitcoin stakeholders can help the decision process within the United States. How can the education committee better engage and request participation from the many writers, educators, and entrepreneurs who are not familiar with much beyond word processors and Wordpress? This I believe is an important question and I do not believe it involves additional layers of decentralized technology. Our children will certainly find decentralized technology convenient but we must keep focus on our audience and our contributors capabilities to work with and digest technology.

4) Good to Great and everything in-between. I challenge those that point to the Bitcoin Foundation or other Foundations and make critical statements without reasonable solutions. We must understand that there are no perfect organizations or individuals and that the best we can manage is to move from good to great and in the process enjoy the community that was created. I support the Bitcoin Foundations efforts with understanding they will never be perfect but they will have accomplished a critical amount of good along the way.

[mdhaze]

@DOSHOSTNET

I am only concerned that a phrase "decentralization" may in fact be whatever someone wishes to make of it. Socialist countries, if you view their propaganda, are "a people's republic". In practice their ideals turned to something quite different. So there is massive experience in history on various flavors of "decentralization."

RE "every process does not have to be decentralized because it is associated with Bitcoin" this ducks and dodges the actual imperatives of the protocol as laid out in the documents by Satoshi Nakamoto. Namely, to establish a protocol which enabled trustless transactions between individuals. That's a fairly simple, straightfoward concept. If it were to be replaced with some group of vaguely defined concepts such as "decentralization", the only results would be bad.

The protocol does not need the BF. The BF's industry members may benefit from the BF. Use of substitute currencies arises atomically, at the small transaction level, between individuals. Thus we have a curiosity: A decentralized protocol which exists and in fact is flourishing, about which people choose to argue issues of decentralization of WHAT, EXACTLY?

Information and opinions about the protocol?

[DOSHOSTNET]

@mdhaze I agree that propaganda/branding is a strategy invoked for good and/or the manipulation of individuals. The judgment of this is not an activity that I actively participate in.

I agree that the protocol as defined by Nakamoto is clear, has disruptive potential, and has changed our world. As an implementer and developer of technology for the past two decades I find it imperative to meet the intended audience where they are comfortable. Time is on our side in bringing forward individuals from that point to the ultimate destination.

I agree that the protocol does not need the BF.

[mdhaze]

@DOSHOSTNET

It wasn't propaganda/branding that I was focusing on, so let me elaborate. Concepts of top down control versus decentralization have been literally a major subject for thousands of years. Just a few: Method of rule of the Roman Empire. Basic relation between the individual and the "organized religion" in Catholicism vs Protestant theology. Method of management of large, geographically disbursed corporations and businesses. You get the idea. But regarding the collectivist approach to government, Marx and Engels did discuss this exact subject. Of course they did, they had to...

Some weeks ago I suggested a real priority for the BF ED should/might be the provisioning, or locating, of a large number of language translations of the basic Nakamoto paper.

I now extend that to suggesting discussion of that paper and of it's concepts, in preference and priority over independently generated work "on how to use bitcoin". Maybe I am wrong but it seems this is hard to argue against...

[DOSHOSTNET]

@mdhaze Thank you for the additional detail and what you have brought to my attention.

I would like to suggest parallel activities; Those with the necessary knowledge and skills to focus on the paper and translation, those with pressing needs within their States/communities to focus on "end-user" education. Injustice, censorship, and our civil rights are at risk without education of the public. This comes from personal experience on the front lines of building the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[ABISprotocol]

This is one of those times when I find myself in agreement with @bg002h's remarks.

@MillyBitcoin stated in an earlier comment that "Web site content cannot be decentralized," which is a hasty generalization and is incorrect. @MillyBitcoin also stated that "Using terms like "more decentralized" is almost like saying "more pregnant" ~ and stated, "What you are doing is presenting a centralized system and misrepresenting it by calling decentralized."

The above statements from @MillyBitcoin are examples of poorly constructed thoughts and portions of faulty arguments, which are riddled with formal fallacies and etymological fallacies. Etymological fallacies occur with respect to the meaning of words as presented.

For those who are seriously interested in issues connected with the meaning of decentralization, long before bitcoin arrived on the scene and well before the emergence of virtual, decentralized marketplaces, studies were performed which analyzed and provided formulae for assessing decentralization of markets. Here is one such study, from 2001, which was done in Arizona with the assistance of the University of Madrid.

In any event, I do not support an effort to define decentralization particularly via this issue, or for the Education Committee, or for the Foundation. Decentralization will have different meanings and contexts, and will be more or less present, depending upon who uses the term, what they think it means relative to what they are doing, and/or who is attempting to implement it. The idea that the Education Committee should not call its process decentralized because faulty arguments have been presented here, smacks of religiosity and quixotic pursuit of a hard standard for meaning of term(s) which, for those in pursuit, appears to be an opportunity to constrain how people wish to express themselves. In short, if we wish to describe what we are doing as decentralized, or involving process(es) of decentralization, we may say so and express this in the documents we produce, and I will certainly continue to. In closing, I refer readers to my prior comment which provides a suggestion for how to proceed in the context of the issue raised here.

[ghost]

ABISprotocol - You claim I am all wrong and a web site can be decentralized. Yet you cannot explain why and you provide a paper about selling lemons that doesn't explain anything about the point you are trying to make. Once again, a web site cannot be decentralized because some entity owns and controls it. You are misrepresenting the meaning of decentralization and are using it as a buzzword to make the web site sound more important than it really is. A web site has several single points of control which includes who has access to change the name servers.

There are a bunch of irresponsible people who makes all sorts of wacky claims about Bitcoin and the things surrounding it. You have people claiming a web site can de "decentralized" when it is owned by one entity, you have people claiming Bitcoin will end wars and cause banks to collapse, you have a Bitcoin board member launching a "backed" coin and claiming it is a competitor to Bitcoin, etc. You have other prominent Bitcoiners who go around spouting total nonsense at some of these conferences. If you want a reasonable education committee you can't start repeating this nonsense and act like it is factual. My experience is that many of these people are young and they don't listen to anyone or anything because they think that because they discovered Bitcoin earlier than most that they are some kind of an expert on everything in the world.

[ABISprotocol]

@MillyBitcoin Yeah, you must be right about everything. Clearly no-one should listen to their heart, they should listen to you. OK, I'm done here. Cheers.

[bradwheeler]

If I can interject here - I think we're going down a bit of a rat hole with this specific discussion.

Specific words in our community - decentralized being one of them - carry a lot of baggage around here. It's fine to use the word, but I think we'll continually find a need to justify this language. Maybe we need to start an Education Committee FAQ to pin down some pain points and provide some context.

What would be better would be something that actively helps describe the committee processes, as they are presently. It would help serve as a reference and clear up misinformation about our process and product quickly. Any proposed changes to workflow can be placed in context of these models and have tractable meaning. Maybe some workflow models, swimlanes, etc. My understanding is that BF committees are run mostly ad-hoc, use different sets of tools, and have different leadership styles and participants. Outsiders finding understanding in such heterogeneity requires a lot of work. It may be time to clear this up across the organization.

re: unclear committee content - perhaps we need to strengthen peer review or have automated review cycles if we are seeing systematic deficiencies w/r/t the committee's products. We certainly need folks to raise issues when they are seen and to interact in ways that are constructive.

[ABISprotocol]

I personally oppose fallacious nonsense. Adios, pues.

[David-R-Allen]

I agree Brad. Let's develop an Education Committee FAQ that addresses the very nature of our involvement. Like Brian, I want to be of some use (service) to the organization, because I believe contributing is the most productive I can be.

Muéstrame el tenedor, señor.

[ghost]

I just noticed a commercial web site involving Bitcoin and they state at the web site that their products are rated via a "decentralized community consensus." "Decentralized" is turning into an advertising buzzword and the original meaning (if there was one) is being lost. I have been poking around for a more precise definition or deeper explanation of "decentralized" and I am not finding much that is specific enough to be really useful for the things being discussed here.

[mdhaze]

@MillyBitcoin LOL, I would say that any and all company's sales are rated via a "decentralized community consensus".

[ghost]

mdhaze - They said their products were RATED that way in an attempt to get people to buy. That is what the Bitcoin Foundation is doing when they claim their web site is created that way. It is an advertising stunt to try to say your products are better than others. Why don't you focus on the issues instead of trying to attack me personally?

[David-R-Allen]

@MillyBitcoin No one is attacking you personally. You seem to be presenting that this (GitHub) is a good place to attack the foundation. There is no one here who is involved directly with the foundation, outside of a committee whose intentions are to provide educational material for everyone. BTW I agree with you. Any mention of decentralization in the context of a committee, or organization, is probably a bad idea, because ultimately someone has to take responsibility for posting. I just did and I am only central to myself. Can we move on please?

[mdhaze]

@MillyBitcoin @David-R-Allen The problem with ALL of these points of view is that at the base issue, we are dealing with a decentralized trustless currency and database. Suppose instead, the base commodity was gold. Gold could be promoted by (A) tyrants (B) selfish rich guys (C) investment counselors (D) liars and cheats (E) black marketeers (F) gangsters, etc, many types of people not just the nice friendly ones. Because it's simply a medium for transfer and storage of wealth.

Similarly, bitcoin could be promoted and popularized by many people and organizations, some of which we find rather unsavory. You get the idea.

SO WHAT???

[ghost]

mdhaze - The issue has to do with the claimed mission of the Foundation as compared to their actual actions (or inactions) and, in some cases, they have implied their representation goes beyond their membership. They don' represent me and I don't represent them even though I use Bitcoin.