You want a centralized decision making?
Bitcoin is anarchistic in nature and the more people is involed the more conflict you get.
That's the reason those anarchists select this consensus based model to make decisions, it suits bitcoin community very well |
|
|
|
A following thought: If people could not reach enough consensus after all efforts, what should they do?
I think the answer is: "Do nothing until they are facing real measurable problems"
Historically, full consensus is usually reached when parties with conflicting interest are all facing the same crisis thus must act towards the same goal Looks like Bitcoin XT is that crisis.  I like this method for forcing a decision to be made. Instead of waiting for the crisis we wish to avoid, introducing Bitcoin XT forces the issue before we get there. Bitcoin XT then becomes the default if no consensus can otherwise be reached. If no other consensus is reached, then consensus for XT as the default will eventually be reached instead. This common threat serves as a catalyst for come to "REAL CONSENSUS", which I believe in our case is a block size increase on Core. Imagine that one day, even a legitimate 0.01 BTC fee transaction can not be processed (Which makes bitcoin more expensive than bank), then it is very easy to reach consensus to raise the block size I think if we wait until that point then XT 75% will be reached in panic. Side chain supporters will try to persuade people to use their solution, but similarly, people must reach enough consensus on that matter. Just read a research paper from bank of england, it said, you don't always need trustless model everywhere. To use offchain financial service, some large wallet service provider is enough, because the transactions are small, the risk for each individual is also small
Based on statistics, majority of bitcoin transactions on blockchain are larger than 0.05 BTC, e.g. $10. So a fee higher than 0.005 btc will start to affect small transactions significantly, but we are far from reaching that status yet
I think this Bitcoin XT model, of introducing a single general solution to the all of the problems with a 75% consensus threat into the mix, all in order to force the community to buckle down and arrive at a "TRUE CONSENSUS" on the best solution, or do nothing and agree that the introduced general solution 75% consensus threat is the best solution. Or just ignore it as noise  What's wrong with bitcoin? It works well today tomorrow next week, next month... To be precisely, fork is that crisis. Because a fork without super majority consensus will essentially kill bitcoin, it is an extinction level events that every bitcoin supporter should try their best to avoid. Since XT brought us with this potential risk, it will get strong resistance from everywhere Core can also raise the block size, but never in a dramatic way that XT promotes |
|
|
|
|
A little bit off-topic, but forex is an interesting topic
Forex exchange runs on interbank market, which is a secret market that most of the people do not have any idea how it works. Interestingly, from wiki it states: "the interbank market is unregulated and decentralized (like bitcoin). There is no specific location or exchange where these currency transactions take place" so that each country's government have no control over the value of that country's currency, only central banks knows how it works
For any exchange to take place, two accounts of those currencies must be prepared at first place. E.g. the exchange must have both euro account in a european bank and USD account in a US bank, in order to exchange euro and usd. (Kraken does not trade USD, simply because they don't have USD account in a US bank)
But how money really moves between this European bank and that US bank is still complicated
For example, an exchange sell 90 euro and buy 100 USD, so that his US bank is going to add 100 USD to his account, and his european bank will subtract 90 euro from his account. But behind the scene, how does that european bank remove 90 euro from its book and at the same time credit 100 USD into that US bank? It is similar to the settlement process between banks, it means that each bank must already have a large account in another bank, so called currency exchange contract
In case of bitcoin, it is much easier to understand, since bitcoin exists like a commodity, when I sell 1 bitcoin for 230 dollar, I send exchange 1 bitcoin and exchange send me 230 dollar, just like a normal commercial activity and a normal bank transfer
|
|
|
|
|
Honest money will have a vast impact to the monetary system we have today, but how would such a money survive in today's fiat money flooded world is to be seen. I guess most possibly it will only become a medium of saving, e.g. people no longer save using fiat money, but only bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually unemployment will reach 90% when all the jobs are replaced by robots, we are just in a transition phase, now some of the jobs are replaced by automation and computer already, and the speed is accelerating. With super high productivity by robots in future, no one really need to work, but then the question is how would people get their income, it seems they can only get it in a way similar to what Greece is doing right now: Borrow more and more from central bank
|
|
|
|
|
Heating devices, they works extremely well if you pair them with some quiet fans. Someone even install them in the central heating chamber to send warm air into the whole house
|
|
|
|
|
Because there are just too many fiat money out there, bitcoin is just a fun game in the eyes of rich people
Some rich kids with a pocket change could open an exchange and set a 100k bitcoin buy wall and forget about it and go for his vacation
|
|
|
|
These people are addicted to easy money or free money from government. They do not want to do any tough jobs and expect government to provide all white color easy jobs and more money so if you follow these strategy no country can survive for long. One should think toward working hard to earn money and not for easy money. This is the lesson for all those countries who provide more social welfare program than creating new jobs for people to work.
Yes greece should star thinking about real economy growth not just borrowing money from Europe. For that people should start working hard. The traditional job and money relation ship has totally changed when money can be created out of nothing 44 years ago with the removal of gold standard In a traditional system, in order to get money, you must work, either by producing something useful for others or mining gold, they are equal work, so if you work hard, you will always get more money But after the removal of gold standard, money is created out of nothing, then it is all about how to get more money from central bank (they can create unlimited money). So even if you work hard, when you don't get money from central bank, your life will be miserable. For others who can get money from central bank, even they don't work at all, they can live like a king. That's the reason Greeks do not work while constantly seeking money from ECB, they know how this system works, they know that ECB can always create money and lend to them Besides, we are in an over-production era, more work will just create more waste since most of the demand is fulfilled, it is making more sense to create money first, because everyone want to get money through work, then without money you won't create work |
|
|
|
|
A following thought: If people could not reach enough consensus after all efforts, what should they do?
I think the answer is: "Do nothing until they are facing real measurable problems"
Historically, full consensus is usually reached when parties with conflicting interest are all facing the same crisis thus must act towards the same goal
So, if 1MB block is really full and many transactions are experiencing significant delay, it will raise the level of consensus of majority of members to go over to larger blocks
Currently, it is just a threat out of imagination. The stress test several weeks ago has proved that even every block is more than full, the network can still process the transaction normally, and nodes only need to add one line of configuration to discard those very-low-fee transactions to prevent them from entering the mempool
Imagine that one day, even a legitimate 0.01 BTC fee transaction can not be processed (Which makes bitcoin more expensive than bank), then it is very easy to reach consensus to raise the block size
Side chain supporters will try to persuade people to use their solution, but similarly, people must reach enough consensus on that matter. Just read a research paper from bank of england, it said, you don't always need trustless model everywhere. To use offchain financial service, some large wallet service provider is enough, because the transactions are small, the risk for each individual is also small
Based on statistics, majority of bitcoin transactions on blockchain are larger than 0.05 BTC, e.g. $10. So a fee higher than 0.005 btc will start to affect small transactions significantly, but we are far from reaching that status yet
|
|
|
|
It can only be purchased with bitcoins. I suggest you go ahead and buy a hundred billion dollars worth of bitcoins right away, now that price is extremely low.
|
|
|
|
a fork will just cause mutually assured destruction, and most importantly it broke the promise of limited supply of bitcoin. For money, when trust is gone, the value is gone
No it won't. You seem to forget that there is a built in economic incentive to prevent that. What incentive? When your coins suddenly doubled overnight, won't you sell half of them on the chain that you don't like? It is highly likely that those who commanding 25% of the hashing power on core chain owns 75% of existing coins (Majority of new ASIC hash power are speculative late adopters and have mined only a little coins so far) Besides, what if satoshi decided to use his 1 million coins to wipe out the XT chain's value? Fork is suicide |
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a way to use block chain technology to arrive at consensus for questions such as, "what is the best solution to the block size issue?" and implement that best solution? Surely there must be a way to utilize this shiny new technology which is essentially just a decentralized way to arrive at consensus, to arrive at consensus on something as important as this block size issue is….
Blockchain can help us to get some technical facility but ultimately it is the human that is making decision. You can prohibit any change in protocol, but then you lose the ability to adopt to any unknown future change I have pointed out this 2 years ago that there is no clear decision making mechanism in the bitcoin community, especially the core devs. But unfortunately at that time I did not noticed and researched consensus decision making model, now it is time to pay more attention to this decision-making model An example for the importance of consensus building: The 2013 fork is reversed by an urgent decision among core devs, but obviously it does not satisfy everyone, especially Gavin. Since that decision was not well reached through a consensus model, Gavin felt that he is left over and dis-empowered by the other core devs. This in turn leads to his radical action of joining XT branch and cause turbulence in the whole community 2 years later |
|
|
|
The thing is, bitcoin definitely something different with all of what we have seen in the past. A consensus with a small group of people can indeed work fairly well with all the points you mentioned above but how to reach a consensus with a very very large group of people with diametrical point of views? The answer is, it is most likely impossible. This leads us to an impasse where no decisions can be made while the market and all the businesses can't afford to wait forever. I think that XT if forcing that consensus to actually be made at some point.
Because bitcoin is something totally new, so we could not use any traditional method like war and vote to resolve the conflict of interest, it just does not suit, a fork will just cause mutually assured destruction, and most importantly it broke the promise of limited supply of bitcoin. For money, when trust is gone, the value is gone In fact, if you look at those people that uses consensus decision-making model, they are very close to the group of people that bitcoin users are: anarchists, independent, vountarily From the main article: ------------------------------- Who uses consensus? Consensus is not a new idea. Variations of consensus have been tested and proven around the world and through time. On the American continent non-hierarchical societies have existed for hundreds of years. Before 1600, five nations - the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca - formed the Haudenosaunee Confederation, which works on a consensual basis and is still in existence today. There are also many examples of successful and stable utopian communes using consensus decision making such as the Christian Herrnhuter settlement 1741-1760 and the production commune Boimondeau in France 1941-1972. Christiania, an autonomous district in the city of Copenhagen has been self-governed by its inhabitants since 1971. Within the co-operative movement many housing co-ops and social enterprises use consensus successfully: prominent examples include Green City, a wholefood wholesaler based in Scotland; and Radical Routes, a network of housing co-ops and workers’ co-ops in the UK. The business meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) use consensus to integrate the insights of each individual, arriving at the best possible approximation of the Truth. Political and social activists such as many anarchists and others working for peace, the environment and social justice commonly regard consensus to be essential to their work. They believe that the methods for achieving change need to match their goals and visions of a free, nonviolent, egalitarian society. In protests around the world many mass actions and protest camps involving several thousand people have been organised and carried out using consensus, including the 1999 ‘Battle of Seattle’ World Trade Organisation protest, the 2005 G8 summit protests in Scotland and the Camps for Climate Action in the UK, Germany, Australia, Netherlands and other countries. |
|
|
|
|
Also from wiki
As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be:
Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision making process attempts to generate as much agreement as possible
Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible
Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals
Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process
Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers
-------------------
You can clearly see that XT move violated some of the rules in this practice, thus leading to competitive, rather than cooperative atmosphere
|
|
|
|
Just had some good reading at http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus"Consensus decision making is a creative and dynamic way of reaching agreement between all members of a group. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority of the group getting their way, a group using consensus is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports, or at least can live with. This ensures that all opinions, ideas and concerns are taken into account. Through listening closely to each other, the group aims to come up with proposals that work for everyone. Consensus is neither compromise nor unanimity - it aims to go further by weaving together everyone's best ideas and key concerns - a process that often results in surprising and creative solutions, inspiring both the individual and the group as whole. Consensus can work in all types of settings - small groups, local communities, businesses, even whole nations and territories. The exact process may differ depending on the size of the group and other factors, but the basic principles are the same. " |
|
|
|
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115135/ethereum-founder-vitalik-buterin-talks-cryptocurrency-governance"To discourage a gas limit that leads to high mining centralization, Buterin proposed a target uncle rate. An “uncle” is kind of like an orphan block in Bitcoin—a valid block that doesn't make it into the main chain. So if the target uncle rate were 0.4, it would mean that the network is striving for 4 % of blocks uncled on average, explained Buterin. If the network were uncling at a higher rate, like 0.6, then miners would need to push down the gas limit. The gas limit has this effect because smaller blocks propagate faster and less uncling supposedly occurs in a network where propagation times are less varied. Later on, Buterin argued that while Bitcoin developers are arguing about whether to change the blocksize from 1MB to 8MB, the thinking behind Ethereum has been less about numbers and more about mechanisms, like the target uncle rate approach. “Choosing institutions rather than choosing results is a kind of a more robust way of doing governance,” Buterin said. “But the meta-level concern is, in general, how do these choices get chosen?” he added. " His last words nailed it, it is not a technical problem, thus any technical solution will not work. The conflict is caused by different view from different person, it will always happen in future How do human solve conflicts? War? Vote? Diplomacy? Divide? When I think about these, I really shocked that human's decision making mechanism are so poor, it is almost like still in stone age
|
|
|
|
Yes, in a developed and efficient market, price manipulation would not be possible. If somebody does try to manipulate markets, he would get caught and be prosecuted. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in crypto-markets.
It is always easy to manipulate the price by changing the money supply. We just witnessed that FED printed 5x USD to make sure the housing price does not crash as they should, this is the largest scale market manipulation in human history In principle, no one could change the money supply on crypto-markets, so theoretically it should be close to ideal free market. But currently the economy scale is still too small, any hedge fund would be able to manipulate the exchange rate. However, the ability to manipulate it down is limited, due to limited sell pressure they can generate |
|
|
|
You dont understend how Eurozone isworking,EBC and national central banks
Lets take Germany like example
Bundesbank president were warning Merkel and EBC,that what thayaredoing is driving Europe,including Germany to catastrophe,all thatausterity,raising debts EBC QE,all that can create huge problems
And what nothing,Bundesbank ,germany central ban voice is nothing,nobodycare,In Eurozone national central banks importance is limited to almost zero.EBC is only onecentral bank for all Eurozone countries
That is even hard to believe ,becouse eurozone countries are independent countries
Euro has been created like a political project,practically money are in Germany hands
I guess this EMU thing is a large plan by central banks, and since long ago those banks are already merged. Maybe the ECB owner is the same as GCB owner, so they treat all countries in Euro zone the same, don't want to spoil Greece government. However, just like each child have different personality, each country have its own spending habit It seems their merger did not reach Nordic countries therefore Denmark Sweden Norway did not join EMU, still printing their own money, but get larger volatility on foreign currency market as their currency scale is too small (Swedish currency had been attacked by Soros during 90s and followed by long recession, but they still prefer their own currency) Maybe the nordic country are facing the same problem as Greece, but as long as they can print their own money (Swedish central bank has dropped to negative interest long ago), they still can hang on |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
