|
i think the point would not be to necessary achieve 100% consensus but to strive for it. with a simple majority wins system you don't get both side to try comparmize or try to think of alt solutions which satisfy everyone. so it might not be possible to really achieve consensus but its important to TRY to reach a consensus.
|
|
|
|
Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.
Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile" what is bitcoin? Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin. there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Very good letter. Finally the people have heard the voice of the reason and will sit to discuss about the problem which faced bitcoin nowadays. This is the right solution and not the division. Hope that everything will go ok and will not be division. Even flaring the absence of the name of Gavin. Hope it will not be late for a pacific and overall solution.
oh ya they got this don't worry. |
|
|
|
ok, somewhat plausible I suppose, but idiotic as you say.
We can accuse both sides of bad motives but I think one side wants main chain scaling and one wants off chain scaling. would you agree?
It's more like one side wants optimal decentralization and security while the other side is fixated on scaling the system by externalizing costs to the ones running it. there's a third side saying lets give ourselves some breathing room, and keep trying to find a more optimal solution. BIP100 |
|
|
|
|
One of the core principles behind bitcoin is that nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin. By making it easier for everyone to express their acceptance of a potential change, we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus and roll out changes according to the original design of Bitcoin, while limiting potential forks created when changes are implemented without knowing whether or not the changes will be accepted by the network.
imagine the mess we would be in if XT gained 35% of hash rate power.... that shit NEEDS to be avoided at all cost.
|
|
|
|
Consensus worked for bitcoin back when everyone knew how the system worked. I'm not sure it's possible now, when people don't even understand core concepts.
its silly to think someone would bother to vote if he didn't even bother to understand core concepts, if all this pointless Discussion on bitcointalk.org proves anything, it is that poeple understand the fundamentals pretty darn well... |
|
|
|
are you crazy?
no democracy, no government that most of the people wants.
are you crazy? there is a government its called gavain oh wait no, now its called a handful of devs all in disagreement. |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair enough. Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion.
individual's opinion aren't as interesting as the opinion of everyone put together. if 75% of poeple vote for 1 out of 3 seemingly equally valid BIPs you can bet your ass there is something special about that particular BIP. if one person is making a lot of noise about his favored BIP it's not as convincing... also lets consider whats we're seeing now miners are voting for BIP100 with a strong majority, BIP100 give miners more power so of course they will tend to vote for this option. probably BTC votes would not show such a strong majority favoring BIP100. I think giving devs this information ( what minner want, what Investors want, what Large bitcoin entities want) is absolutely critical for them to make the "best" decision. what is the best decision if not one which satisfies as many poeple in the different groups? |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin. www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensusThe above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with. With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on. What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus. This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM. Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important? The really interesting idea is: If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus. bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote. But there isn't a mechanism by which this could achieve anything. Stakeholders in the POS sense do not (and should not) have a vote in a POW system. This is what we signed up for when we became bitcoiners..... Plus, what stops me from sending coins back and forth from an exchange to new addresses, which I would sign as if I were a "new" voter? good catch, moving the coins would mean there vote is worth 0. periodically a computer would check all the signed messages and the current BTC balance in the signing address. just because the system itself only cares about miners, this doesn't mean users opinion is irrelevant, minner might actuly look to see where economic marjory settles before casting their vote, after all the happier the user base is the more profit they can make with the BTC the mine. |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin. www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensusThe above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with. With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on. What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus. This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM. Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important? The really interesting idea is: If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus. bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote. I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea. i don't see why, voting can be anonymous... all we would be aware of is some BTC address with 25K BTC signed a message saying "BIP100" |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin. www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensusThe above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with. With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on. What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus. This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM. Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important? The really interesting idea is: If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus. bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote. |
|
|
|
A good argument against the bitcoiners that demand 1MB blocksize because "Miners have to be rewarded" is the electricity that goes away with that. I recently read an article about a study saying that currently 1! bitcoin transaction costs so much electricity like 1.75 normal US households use in a day.
We can't let all these miners survive artificially by raising the fees. The amount of miners need to be trimmed down and the bitcoin security be more power efficient. That was always happening and it should and can't be held up artificially. The bitcoin network would be still very very secure with less miners.
Unfortunately miners are the mighty ones in the game. We only can hope that the sane one are the biggest ones. And that they see the need of bitcoin adoption for getting future profits.
That is a sick amount of power... So mining one block consumes the power of a full city? That is insane and not sustainable, especially if it keeps rising... I do agree that's a lot to secure this level of Bitcoin transactions as of today. But I also read that current amount of hashing power is enough to secure even a 100 fold increase in the transaction number and user number. So to say, if we would have 100 million users, the network would be secured with today's hash rate. That's why I don't understand the opponents of the block size increase. Bitcoin has to scale in order to be sustainable in the long run! For that we need bigger blocks! but WHO will ever be able to download 8MB 8 FUCKING MASSIVE MEGA BYTES this will surely make minning WAY more centralized |
|
|
|
Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.
Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network. Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.  I guess this is good for adoption right?  I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed. The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them. adopters that will buy and hold, do so in the hopes one day everyone is doing "bitcafe transaction" so maybe you should care? |
|
|
|
If BIP101 supporters came around to a more responsible, incremental approach that is line with real transaction growth -- not transaction growth that they want to happen -- this issue would be a lot less controversial.
I agree with that statement... but as I have little to zero contact or influence with Gavin (although he might be reading this), there's not much I can personally do. the miners too agree on a "approach that is line with real transaction growth" https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools>60% hashing for BIP100 |
|
|
|
I am so confused.
What is better? Which one do you guys recommend more?
Thank you for your time
Both are good.Litecoin is a long term investment while bitcoin can give you returns in short period of time i think you got that backward LTC will become increasingly less important as newer better alts are created BTC will always be important because of many many factors. new alts will always be more risky, simply because they are new and untested. |
|
|
|
In 12 months, average blocksize will be about 1mb on the current trajectory,
never mind spikes, unforseen circumstances, and the many months time
needed for consensus and rollout.
How long do you think we should wait?
~11.5months  |
|
|
|
|
thats the thing bitcoin has always been very centralized in its development. at first there was 1 guy with 1 vision. then gavin came, tried to listen to everyone but when it came down to it he would do what he thought was best, even if there was disagreement. now gavin is gone, there a hole bunch of dev's each with there own idea of what bitcoin should become, each with a BIP tailored to their vision, each conviced there idea is the best way to go. and so they argue, and argue, meanwhile nothing is getting solved... there needs to be a better way, we need a "boss" that calls the shots!? no we need to decentralize decision making!
a decentralized governance model.
thats what we're working on,
stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
|
if bitcoin reaches 1$ its going to 0$ in the following 3 seconds.
|
|
|
|
 i found him! |
|
|
|
who is this loser?
Nakamoto & some icy broad. Seriously, did you need to quote it?   wtf is wrong with him? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
