Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin

[Peter R]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

[shmadz]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision,

When the longest chain is then later abandoned, you can lose a lot of money being on the longest chain. You do remember the fork in 2013, don't you?

[Peter R]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision,

When the longest chain is then later abandoned, you can lose a lot of money being on the longest chain. You do remember the fork in 2013, don't you?

BIP101 activation requires support from 75% of the hash power (which itself requires broad support from network nodes, Bitcoin businesses and the user base). Do you think it is reasonable that >25% of hash power would "play games" by faking their support (assuming that's what you're getting at)?

[brg444]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't.

Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it. XT is DOA and support only by a circle jerk of /r/bitcoin exilees running pretendnodes on 15$ VPS accounts.

It is fair to say only a very irrelevant amount of full nodes holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain are actually running XT as we speak

[knight22]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't.

Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it.

Big players that need scaling for their operations will and won't care about you and I opinions for their products to go mainstream.

[Peter R]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't.

Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it.

14% of the nodes are buying it as of today.  That's up from 0% a little over a week ago.  Let's see how much of the hash power is buying it two months from now...

[brg444]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't.

Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it.

14% of the nodes are buying it as of today.  That's up from 0% a little over a week ago.  Let's see how much of the hash power is buying it two months from now...

Refer to my edit

XT is DOA and supported only by a circle jerk of /r/bitcoin exiles running pretendnodes on 15$ VPS accounts.

It is fair to say only a very irrelevant amount of full nodes holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain are actually running XT as we speak

Take your eyes off the scoreboard for a second. It is meaningless and they put it there for a reason. You're playing right into their hands.

Watch the game won't you?

[johnyj]

Voting is not the way to go, it will kill bitcoin

Consensus Decision Making model is the best choice:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158988.msg12207921#msg12207921

[marcus_of_augustus]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

.. you've conveniently missed out other risks on your decision matrix. Like minimally-reviewed, untested code, anti-privacy agendas of the developers involved in XT ... so conservative decision on an honest matrix, I'd say no.

[johnyj]

"What's wrong with voting?

Working in a small group where everyone votes directly on important issues may feel like having democratic control. However, voting creates a majority and a minority - a situation in which there are winners and losers. If most people support an idea then it will be voted in, and the concerns of the people who opposed it can be ignored. This situation can foster conflict and distrust as the 'losers' feel disempowered by the process. The will of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the minority expected to accept and carry out the decision, even if it is against their deeply held convictions and most basic needs. A majority will find it easy to steamroll an idea over a dissenting minority rather than looking for another solution that would suit all. People might sometimes choose to bow to the will of the majority, but, in a voting system, when people constantly find themselves in a minority they lose control over their own lives. A vivid example is the imprisonment, in many European 'democracies', of those refusing military service.

It's true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, but that doesn't mean to say that this decision will be a wise one, or even morally acceptable. After all, at one time, the majority of Europeans and North Americans supported the 'right' to hold slaves."

[Peter R]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

.. you've conveniently missed out other risks on your decision matrix. Like minimally-reviewed, untested code, anti-privacy agendas of the developers involved in XT ... so conservative decision on an honest matrix, I'd say no.

It would be helpful to have a version of Core + BIP101 released by an independent party (to calm the fears about the other changes in XT [although I believe those fears are baseless]).  This is what jonald_fyookball and jwinterm proposed a few minutes ago here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.msg12224417#msg12224417

[Peter R]

"What's wrong with voting?

The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense.  He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc.  If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become.  He wants to give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)).

[brg444]

That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

.. you've conveniently missed out other risks on your decision matrix. Like minimally-reviewed, untested code, anti-privacy agendas of the developers involved in XT ... so conservative decision on an honest matrix, I'd say no.

It would be helpful to have a version of Core + BIP101 released by an independent party (to calm the fears about the other changes in XT [although I believe those fears are baseless]).  This is what jonald_fyookball and jwinterm proposed a few minutes ago here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.msg12224417#msg12224417

this would be buying the good cop/bad cop false dilemma where somehow to erase the fright of a possible XT-induced fork war we "settle" for pulling the same broken proposition in core.

Forget 8MB & forget exponential growth.

[johnyj]

"What's wrong with voting?

The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense.  He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc.  If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become.  Give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)).

That's still a vote, what if the minority of the hash power don't want to use larger blocks? You are still forcing a change on them. And those minorities might command much larger stake in bitcoin ecosystem than you can imagine, they could easily destroy your majority fork with the flip of a pen

Please read this article again if you are interested
http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

[Peter R]

"What's wrong with voting?

The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense.  He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc.  If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become.  Give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)).

That's still a vote, what if the minority of the hash power don't want to use larger blocks? You are still forcing a change on them. And those minorities might command much larger stake in bitcoin ecosystem than you can imagine, they could easily destroy your majority fork with the flip of a pen

Please read this article again if you are interested
http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

I suppose you can call it a sort of vote, but I respectfully disagree that it would be a negative.  In fact, IMO, what Adam described in the OP would simply be Bitcoin's consensus mechanism playing out before our eyes.  From the white paper (paraphrased):

- Nodes assemble valid transactions into a block and work to find a proof-of-work.

- Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it.

- The longest chain composed of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  



By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

[BitProdigy]

I suppose you can call it a sort of vote, but I respectfully disagree that it would be a negative.  In fact, IMO, what Adam described in the OP would simply be Bitcoin's consensus mechanism playing out before our eyes.  From the white paper (paraphrased):

- Nodes assemble valid transactions into a block and work to find a proof-of-work.

- Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it.

- The longest chain composed of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  



By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

yea man I dig it! I think we should combine the Consensus Model JohnyJ is proposing with the Consensus Mechanism You and Adam are proposing.

[johnyj]

By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus

That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE

[knight22]

This might be how the consensus will be reached. Maybe triggered simply with the help of a strong leader.

[Peter R]

By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus

That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE

I sounds like we're arguing semantics.  My definition of "consensus" with regards to Bitcoin is empirical: the longest chain composed of valid transactions has "consensus."  It sounds like you view consensus as more like unanimity.  I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong in our definitions.  However, my definition seems more practical: we can measure the longest chain.  How can we tell if 100% of the network supports something?  Under what conditions is it reasonable to expect exactly 100% support for something?

Furthermore, isn't it clear that 100% of the network is not in favour of keeping the block size limited at 1 MB?  Why should stasis be the default in the case of a stalemate?

[BitProdigy]

If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus

That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE

Step 5 of your model is to "Test The Proposal" in which there is a kind of "voting" that is going on. I think the consensus mechanism being discussed is the best way to implement step 5 of your consensus model. Ultimately a "voting" period is necessary, but the end result is 100% consensus with the best proposal.