On consensus principle

[achow101]

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.

[fat buddah]

Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart.

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.

[achow101]

Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart.

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.

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/

[fat buddah]

Nowhere in any of the mailing list have I seen Gavin essentially say that it his "his way or the highway"

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

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/

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.

[Kprawn]

Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart.

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.

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.   

[Amph]

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.

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

[fat buddah]

There are a lot of roleplayers to include, apart from the developers.

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.

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

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.

I am and wondering why everyone does not sign their posts with a general disclosure of which direction they want to take at this forked path in our road:

The scalability fork

or the

The decentralization fork



You guys don't even have terse names for the two proposals yet.  This is politics, get your campaign on!

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.

[fat buddah]

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.

[fat buddah]

You are absolutely correct Mr. Dover, we need to let our rulers pass whatever laws that they want to no matter how much it concerns us and our money, and we must remain silent all the while they are in control.  I'll shut up now in silent support of my masters because no form of government is as efficient as a Kingdom (ahhh...bliss....)(gee,  I wish I lived in North Korea)

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  

[fat buddah]

You are absolutely correct Mr. Dover, we need to let our rulers pass whatever laws that they want to no matter how much it concerns us and our money, and we must remain silent all the while they are in control.  I'll shut up now in silent support of my masters because no form of government is as efficient as a Kingdom (ahhh...bliss....)(gee,  I wish I lived in North Korea)

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.

[fat buddah]

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! 

[JeromeL]

I'm not your personal jesus.

I am and wondering why everyone does not sign their posts with a general disclosure of which direction they want to take at this forked path in our road:

The scalability fork

or the

The decentralization fork



You guys don't even have terse names for the two proposals yet.  This is politics, get your campaign on!

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

[fat buddah]

I'm not your personal jesus.

I am and wondering why everyone does not sign their posts with a general disclosure of which direction they want to take at this forked path in our road:

The scalability fork

or the

The decentralization fork



You guys don't even have terse names for the two proposals yet.  This is politics, get your campaign on!

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!

[achow101]

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:

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.

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.