Bitcoin Forum

I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.

The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on that particular change and you need to accept that.

After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)

That is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying.
It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it.

If there would be interest in a real solution and people would have a interest in a non-violent way to find a solution i could think about sharing some info on consensus principles. Most can be read online, there are a lot of different methods though. The most basic method was outlined above.

The Gavintards can now stop crying and a) leave the group or b) produce a new proposal which does not get a veto. If the new proposal gets veto again you can produce another proposal and so on until you have one that can be accepted by everyone. Else there would be more sophisticated but also more complicated methods of approaching consensus wich have more hope for success than a process blocked by veto but as i said i'm not even starting on that in the current climate and the Gavintards so far also only showed a first proposal which was declined.

So really no need to cry like babies. Show some other proposals. 'My way or the highway' is DOA

you realize that bitcoin was released without any limit right? the one wrong here is the actual core implementation with 1mb restriction, not the 20mb proposal

Gavin is doing the right thing, the very wrong proposal is the lighiting network, which in the end it does need an increase in the limit anyway, see the stupidity behind that?

the current situation cannot last long, it's temporary, core must be changed/forked, even satoshy said so about greater adoption and TX/s limit

You do realize i do not talk about blocksize but about consensus mechanisms in consensus democratic groups of people (not machines)? A thing you perhaps aren't familiar with.

Huh, the fork will not happen unless 90%+ of people are using Bitcoin XT, by that point the fork would happen and that would mean people wants XT, simple as that.

1MB is not enough, but 20MB is not enough as well, if we want to compete with Mastercard and friends. Right now Bitcoin's transaction per second volume is extremely poor.

Are you people jaded? I'm not talking about mastercard or tps but about the process of establishing a consensus. 98% of you monkeys have not a fucking clue what a consensus actually is or what the word even means. This includes but is not limited to Gavinbaby.

None of you clowns have in their entire life even taken part in an orderly consensus seeking and finding process. There are rules to a consensus process same as there are rules in a democratic parliament with majority votes. These rules are just different. There's a large set of tools to your availability to actually find a consensus but you people behave like medival apes especailly Gavin!

Most of us don't give a damn about the principles concerning consensus democratic groups. We care about Bitcoin and its future, so we won't be leaving Bitcoin if we're not part of the consensus.  :P

If what you're saying is widely shared then there will be two chains unavoidably, if on the other hand you are just an individual and part of a minority and most people would be actually genuinely looking for consensus then you'd have to leave the group one way or another and consensus could thereafter be established with certainty.

But all in all sounds like two chains to me... saves me the time of the day though wich is nice also. I'm on exchange setting my stop losses if you seek me. Have a good one.


edit: was reading your comment again. You are obviously a monkey too because what you write doesn't even make sense. For your stupid monkey ass: consensus means "everyone agrees on something". So that would actually include yourself aswell as long as you'd respect the right of others to agree and disagree in the same way as you youself are doing. I don't know if people even get the gist of it. Obviously not.

Um, I am sorry but I am not 100% sure what OP is trying to say.  But the problem is that the 1mb limit is quickly being met and will soon be surpassed.  Something needs to be done about it.  Gavin's idea is the best solution right now and will prevent pain down the road.  You are correct in that if there is not consensus then it will not be implemented.  But SOMETHING needs to be done or it will be trouble.

Edit:  No there will not be two chains, there will not be double coins, there will not be an alt coin.  All of this is just fud and misinformation being spread around the forums.  If you read up and care to understand the issue you will see it is really not as frightening as it first seems.

One thing that is poison for any consensus finding process is putting timely pressure on a decision. That's a known fact. Good consensus will not happen in a heated and stressed environment.

I'm going look for some flowcharts right now cuz people obviously never have seen any of that stuff.

This is how you normally do it:

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/images/consensus.jpg

In consensus principles the minority has a right to veto. If they choose to do so their concerns must be heard and the proposal modified until this concerns are resolved. In the end you have a solid consensus and can go forward implementing a solution that is accepted by everyone. It can especially with controversial things take a lot of time and several adjustements of a proposal until it's getting to a consensus. In rare cases no consensus is possible and that means the thing needs to be layed down.
The good thing is: every decision made this way is supported by the entire group and you do not have fights for power within such groups as long as the veto of the minorities is respected.


All that shit is actually part of non-violent communication and mediation strategies aswell.
You can also run politics on it, no doubt.

The devteam seems to be too numb or simply doesn't have that information to successfully function that way which is pretty sad because this actually comes to people naturally if they behave in a civilized and respectful manner with each other.

The larger the group the more time consuming it gets but also: the larger the group the better the results are.

There is no veto. No one vetoed, and most certainly the community did not veto. Just look at the polls and various voting regarding this issue. The community is split, but neither side has enough people to gain consensus. Since there has been no actual implementation of proposed change, there has been no way so far to determine truly if consensus will be achieved since there is no option yet to change to a client which supports larger blocks. Furthermore, if there is no consensus, then the fork will not occur and Bitcoin will remain as it is.

Although there has been no veto, there has been plenty of discussion about both of these options. After reading the dev mailing list, it appears that Gavin is willing to compromise, as are other people active in Bitcoin's development, though I haven't seen other core devs so far. Currently, it seems that people are willing to go with a less drastic increase to around 8 MB instead of 20 MB.

Gavin has said that if the developers do not reach consensus about the issue, he will leave the group and work on the implementation himself with Mike Hearn on his Bitcoin XT fork.

yeah, dude.I think it'll be ok to ignore you for a moment...

Why? Is it because I said something you don't like and proved you wrong? Or do you think that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I am always open to other people's proof. Perhaps you could explain why I'm wrong.

He seems to be more concerned about procedure rather than results. I guess as long as the proper procedure is followed and Gavin et al. raise their hands before going to the restroom (raise one finger for number one and two fingers for number two), everything will be just fine.

You're just talking garbage. You fell through the "tl,dr-filter", sorry.

If you want to carry an intelligent conversation, I advise you read every post, even if it is just "garbage" Your post was also rather long and I thought about ignoring it too, but I decided to read and respond intelligently. If you want to be stubborn and not listen to others, go ahead. I'll just ignore you.

That's right. Result isn't discussed on the thread.  We're talking about the process.
But you still missundertand it maybe willfully.
Actually this would need to be employed by the devteam so we don't need to discuss this in a group of 2000 people.

Generally: If Gavin has a proposal he can proceed like in the chart. If others have concerns then the proposal should be changed until everyone (the other devs) can agree on it.

Gavins' baby-style "my way or the highway" is completely immature and that's not how a devteam can function for a software that greatly depends on consensus. What Gavin does is: vandalizing the devteam, the community, the code and in the end of the day the network.

He really reminds me of a very big Baby.


Looking at consensus principle tools is actually mandatory for a bitcoin developement team. But these guys sit on their high horses and think they know it all.

Bitcoin devteam of more than one person can only work with correctly employed consensus procedures.

Sadly, that stuff isn't taught at universities.

Your original post was intelligent and well thought out. I was in total agreement. By the time I finished your third post, however, I suspected that you had been bit by a rabid squirrel and had gone off the deep end. Unfortunately, nothing you've said since convinces me otherwise. Now I'm going to raise my hand while displaying two fingers because I smell poo.

By the way, I suspect that you have some valid points. It's too bad that your disagreeable manner buried them.

Cheers.

But there is a time pressure dear.  If this problem is not addressed soon then we will have some real trouble on our hands.  Transactions will not be processed and bitcoin will drop significantly in value.

lol, i'm an autist and really am not here to please you. That's not my job. I'd say: deal with it
People like to confuse message and sender. I'm not your personal jesus as this place is full of crooks and i really don't want to waste time.

edit: and you have actually to admit that you in fact ARE a monkey!  ;D




I doubt the time pressure idea. Do you have evidence for your theory of the drop? There is also enough counter evidence for it. But please don't go on about the time pressure as it goes offtopic.




-------


All in all i was just showing a general process for achieving a consensus which i think almost nobody is familiar with for whatever reasons. I think this or similar procedure implemented among the devs or even in the community would lead to much higher productiveness and much less hostility and thus more success. But thats just my 2cents.

Consensus principle done right can enable any group to govern itself leaderless while being highly productive. Certain groups of anarchists should know about it and i'm actually surprised nobody came up with any of that stuff so far.

I think it should be a novelty for you folks to realize that achieving consensus process can be shown on a flowchart and it is actually possible to do it in an orderly manner with a clear cut set of rules instead of running in circles like headless chicken and ending up with secession how it's done right now.

There is even highly advanced methods now which can be shown in numbers and enable groups of very large size to find highly intelligent solutions... but that's probably too much next century for most.

Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart. If you ever read any of the email threads in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, the developers do actually discuss, listen to other proposals, and come up with solutions that they all agree on and think will work. This is how the whole patching and BIP thing works. However, you won't find any consensus on this forum. This forum has tons of FUD and people get one notion in their mind and are too stubborn to realize the truth when it is given to them. People here are both misunderstood and clueless about some things, which leads to the appearance of disorder and non-consensus.

Obviously not as we all have been learning painfully since Gavins' "announcement".
"My way or the highway"-Gavin has no consensus anywhere and obviously he's not willing to change the proposal in order to get consensus from the other devs. Else this whole public debate would not have gotten so much out of hand.

He needs to either change his proposal in order to get a consensus or lay it off. But what we get instead is attrition for everyone.
Nothing has been done like in the flowchart. These people are total amateurs. Coding is all they can, nothing more.
Gavin is behaving like a 6-year-old.
The correct procedure was totally not followed.

Instead of reaching consensus among the devs Gavin decided to take this debate to the public and try to solve it with populism and his little mob of propaganda-bots.
To expect a consensus in the community for something the devs not even have a consensus for borders on mental illness. He's effectively just vandalizing the whole space.

The thing failed already in the dev departement. I don't see why it was even brought into the public domain for discussion when it's clearly still very controversial.

Nowhere in any of the mailing list have I seen Gavin essentially say that it his "his way or the highway" I have seen that he makes concessions, listens to people who reply to his email, and considers the possibilities. In fact, I have found that he is willing to change his proposal. In one of his emails, he stated that he is OK with having the limit at 4 MB or 8 MB now and have it scale up according to Nielson's law. I suggest you read the threads in the mailing list before claiming that Gavin is not changing. You can find the mailing list here: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/

It says it here:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/


So why does he not have a consensus in the devteam after possibly years, when he was so cooperative with everyone?
Maybe because he's on his egotrip and always knows everything better? Maybe because the concerns of the others were not taken seriously and just explained away and mitigated by him instead of taken seriously and reflected in the proposal?


edit: ah, but i see, you're actually just part of his propaganda-mob. I'd be glad if you could praise Gavin elsewhere to save everyone time.

I am neither a Gavinturd or a monkey, but I still have a opinion.  ;) The process to reach a consensus in Bitcoin is a bit more complex than what you are making it out to be.

There are a lot of roleplayers to include, apart from the developers. This is something that would influence a lot of people and when it comes to money, people can go a bit over the top.

The developers function should be to determine the need and to apply that need based on a democratic principle. {Mayority rules}

Some of these developers has lost the plot, and they not playing for the same team/goal. The self interest has become their goal now... So consensus will be influenced by that... IMO these people has to leave the group, as you put it... or consensus will never be reached.   >:(

this is still pertinent to what i have wrote, you also wrote some sentence that has to do with the 20mb

apparently you did not understand my post, because, this whole problem has nothing to do with consensus, the 20mb is a real issue that must address, you can't just ignore it and stay with core

it must be done there is no going around it, and unless you are proposing a better alternative, the only way to follow is the 20mb

it's like having consensus on a future 0.12 bitcoin client upgrade..no-sense

The other parties (like miners) would be confronted with the proposal by the devteam not before the devteam has a consensus on it.
These other parties then would also out any concern they have and if they don't consent the proposal  would go back to the devteam which again would have to change the proposal so the concerns of the other parties are respected. Then they could again present their work to these parties. Basically the process after being successful in the devteam and finding consensus would then go to the outer circle of interest groups who also need to consent. If they don't -> proposal must change so they the others can consent ... and so on.
Nowhere is a majority vote required. Majority vote is actually the enemy to every consensus.



You still did not understand what the thread is about. Other than that i don't agree with any of your statements but that's offtopic.


That's exactly what we don't need. This lobbying inside the community for this and that is totally unnecessary as it leads to exactly nothing. It's just frustrating the heck out of everyone.

I've been reding some of the recent conversations Gavin had with others about his bogus Hearnfork and all i see is him defending his proposal. He's defending it all the way out. Nothing else. (He's not even fully consistent which most don't even realize btw. He's always busy questioning everyone elses consistency but apparently almost nobody questions his consistency because if people would he'd be pretty soon immobilized with his proposal.)
 
He is not taking the concerns of others into account in a sufficient way and does in no way consider changing his proposal in a way that would open up the possibility to a consensus with the critics.
He's basically trying to run through walls with his head and in the process looks like a 6-year-old, lying on the ground with a red head, screaming, kicking and punching. And everyone else is really turned off by his behaviour.
Even the market itself now (selling off as we speak). Gavin made it with his negative influence to the marketaction. Congratulations! Gavin now directly affects the price of Bitcoin like a true shitcoin dev does. Way to go!

Consensus will never be achieved that way. Basically because Gavin lacks both: character and knowledge about consensus principles. One could substitute the other but if you have neither you're just a joke in his position.


Again: consensus principles exist many. Tools are in the dozens to working out a consensus in a group. None of this is taught on universities though so it's hard to obtain knowledge for people who don't know nothing about it. But these principles would be needed in case of Bitcoindevelopement which runs on consensus and is totally dependant on it (which is a good thing).
So really i don't see any possible positive change in this fiasco before these grown children on their high horses don't get a basic clue what a consensus between humans is and how it is worked out because there's really methods and guides that can be followed and that lead to success. None of these methods have been employed anywhere basically because nobody has a clue they even exist is my impression.

But as long as feedback on the proposals is not taken seriously and basically ignored there isn't even a need to bother people with it because no consensus is possible anyways. Feedback from the community should be treated with more respect, then maybe it would make sense to bother people. But this Gavin-populism and shit like his last announcement is totally uncalled for. He doesn't even respect the concerns of other experts. So what the hell is this shit? Why do we even talk about it? Get this guy some supervision, he clearly needs it!
Gavin shouldn't even be allowed to make proposals anymore after this fiasco. He should be presented with proposals and get contracts from others what to code. He's clearly not in the position to bring forward any proposals he himself would have to decide on.
If he proposes something it's not on him to judge his own proposal, that's the job of others. He seems not to understand this basic concept!


Bottom line: If you don't respect the communities feedback, then why even bother people with it? Just go back to the rock you crawled out from-under.

The truth of the matter is: we weren't asked at all. We as a community were just targeted with a populism campaign which King Gavin hoped would be a success because people would be too dumb to evaluate and would believe what is them being told so  he could outsmart the devteam and wouldn't need a consensus from them and could basically do whatever he wants as long as the populism works. Well, wasn't so.
How are we as a community even expected to discuss? We aren't. We are just bombarded by some gavin-fans with endless propaganda and that's it.

The only conclusion possible:
Gavin hold way too much influence in this Bitcoin project right now. Influence, he's not able to handle correctly.

Bottom line of the bottomline:
If a decent consensus principle would have been applied all this shit would have been spared (to come back on topic)


-----------

Gavin makes a proposal and judges it himself and then defends it against concerns so it can be unchanged and reflects his own vision only and he of course doesn't get a consensus from anyone for it. What he then does instead of changing the proposal acccording to valid critique and concerns to get a consensus going, is: he starts a populism campaign on social media for it. Excuse me? Must be joking!
Guys, this is not how anything Bitcoin will work longterm.

This whole thing looks like a bunch of amateurs in their garage to me. Bitcoin developement needs clear cut rules how proposals have to happen and how consensus is tried. This right now is just some apes thinking they would be intelligent because they can code and use some academic vocabulary. In reality these guys are total amateurs. And Gavin is amateur #1  

I'm assuming you are ironic. So let me tell you that there would even be the option to take  EVERYONES' opinion into account with the help of (still relatively young) systemic consensus principles. Not exactly a majority vote where people vote a,b or c. But similar. People could express their opinion (in numbers), confronted with different proposals, of what they reject so one could figure out which proposal is the one least rejected by the group. That proposal that gets the least rejection overall is closest to a consensus. But that's sci-fi stuff. lol

It just so happens that what the majority chooses is often miles away from a consensus. If a minority keeps getting exploited and extorted they are likely to rebell and turn hostile or do secession at one point. That's the basic flaw of majority votes. Go read up on democracy. There's way more options than you might think when it comes to democratic principles.
Again: these coders are just coders and that's just not enough for Bitcoin developement. They should be economists and experts for consensus democracy aswell. But they aren't.

The current populism on social platforms concerning the Gavinproposal is unacceptable and a total failure.

In many republics the minister singns the law which a gremium proposes and the parliament passes. These are different bodies for a reason.

One can learn from theories about state building a lot for this case.
It can and will not work out to have Gavin king who proposes, asseses, decides and executes his own proposal.
He is currently legislative, judicative and executive in one person and that's not going to end well, especially not with the cherry of peronality cult on top, you sheep! 

Increasing the maxblocksize to 20MB is just increasing throughput, that won't make Bitcoin more scalable in any way.

Sounds correct to me but is offtopic on this thread which is not about technical details but about 'consensus principles'. Please all discussion about technical details in seperate threads, guys. Thank you!

After doing some review of Gavin's emails on the Bitcoin dev mailing list, I will say that he is acting stubborn and somewhat unwilling to compromise. However, he is not acting like a child. Gavin is not simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong" without any explanation. He replies to concerns about his proposal with logic. He responds with various simulations and other such proof to back up his claims. Furthermore, Gavin does compromise. As you see here: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34162473/, he is willing to compromise to have the block size only go up to 4 MB or 8 MB. There is plenty of discussion on the mailing list, between multiple developers, miners, and users, about his proposal, and he is willing to change. I think that your of:
is completely false.

Another thing, I don't think that his proposal and his discussion on the mailing list have caused the market price to go down, but I have yet to look into that.