Bitcoin Forum

Now this question might sound stupid. Decred is a cryptocurrency with a system of community-based governance integrated into its blockchain. So basically Decred's consensus system maintains an equal balance between miners and users, so both wields equal power. Means users have the power to vote against the (illogical) decision of miners and if they are in majority then Decred developers would heed their proposal and integrate it into their blockchain.

But in bitcoin, users do not have any power to directly influence decisions on bitcoin blockchain level, miners have total control here. Yeah it could be said that indirectly each and every bitcoin user influences the growth and future prospects of bitcoin.

Yeah mining is done by miners, they are the backbone, incentives as block rewards, incentives as transaction fees, and also the power to influence the whole bitcoin network. Do not you think it's a bit too much? Now every bitcoin user cannot buy mining hardware and be a miner to caste their vote, so a simple question. I have a feeling that this might end up being a dumb question. I might be utterly wrong, please do correct me.

Is it possible to change the bitcoin technology to include user based consensus system?

can you explain a little more about how users vote

the users in bitcoin are defined by Nodes and if you run a node you will have an influence and can have a say the future of bitcoin.

no they are workers on the network, or simply employees. the nodes are the backbone. if miners change something and majority of the nodes reject it then they have mined a useless junk because the network didn't accept it.

i believe UASF is an appropriate example in this case here.

I don't think all the power is in the hands of the miners. Take a look at the debate around segwit. It shows that although they have power they don't control the blockchain. This is the reason why changes (like the one you suggested), would not be easily approved.

Agreed.

Bitcoin is the first cryptocoin so it has some flaws naturally. Bitcoin's node system is one those major flaws.

Bitcoin needs a masternode system or something similar like the one DASH has. Running a node consumes energy/money and people don't get paid by doing so.

Why?

Miners mine coins and get paid, they provide the hashpower, they make investments in hardwares. Makes sense.

Nodes are also as important as miners, they secure the transactions but they don't get paid. And why would anybody make investments to run a node?

Need a fix here.

1. bitcoin is a decentralized peer to peer network so it needs peers. if you want to use and continue to use bitcoin you have to contribute. there are ways to reduce the "cost" of running a full node and still contribute.

2. if you want to use bitcoin in a trustless way you have to use a full node. otherwise you will rely on third parties even if it is SPV clients and you will also lose your privacy since they will know all your bitcoin addresses that are associated with you.

3. read your own personal message under your user name!

4. read this for more and a better explanation: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Why_should_you_run_a_full_node.3F

Ultimately the users "govern" any coin via the free market: If the devs force stupid changes through the coin dies. If miners resist good changes or accept bad changes, the coin dies/suffers accordingly. That said, there's room for improvement in governance because what I've just described only tells you whether a change was good or bad after the fact.

I view efforts like Decred's and Tezos as experiments on the road to better governance. Will be interesting to see how they work out - particularly if and when they have something contentious to deal with. (Until such a "stress test" occurs I wouldn't place too much stock in how things are going with such models.)

I am already running a UASF node but that's because i have a purpose by doing so. I am willing to do it for free because I want to end the miners cartel.

If everything was going well, I wouldn't care a bit about running a node.

Contribution, safety, trust ain't mean shit if it is expected to done for free.

Bitcoin itself is about money. Miners contribute, they get paid. Nodes should get paid either. I don't care if it is small or big. Transaction fees were small in the past but they figured out a way to make them big by spamming the network eventually.

Nodes should get paid.

That's what I was asking, is it possible to integrate user based consensus system into bitcoin. I searched and found this:

Proof-of-activity


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0

I am not good with technical aspects of bitcoin, but I guess it is possible to establish an user based consensus system through PoA.

so you do know the reasons and yet you ask!

things are never going to go well. that is the human nature. anywhere in the world there will be people who will come and ruin things for the rest of the world.

in my opninion this is like saying "i have valuables in my home but i refuse to buy a safe and i won't lock my door either because i am not getting paid to do so".

---

thanks for the link

I see this working now. Of course if you mine for the network you have a little more power. That is the way it should be. An analogy in democracy is that if you don't vote you have less power even though the government may represent you equally.  Want more power?, then do more to earn it.

Your example isn't relevant at all.

All i'm saying is, people who run nodes aren't less important than people who run miners. Is it really that hard to understand this?

People willing to mine because they get paid, if they weren't nobody would mine. Same goes for nodes. My last message, i don't care if you get it or not.