Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin

[knight22]

Sorry adam, I don't like your idea. CIYAM is right here.

The main quality you need in order to develop something like bitcoin is expertise. The required expertise is in short supply. The inverse is the alternative; you can't develop sophisticated technology with the "everyone gets an A for effort" mentality.

And so, dare I say it, open source development teams have inherently socialistic characteristics. It's one of a few examples where socialism is preferable to free market decision making.

The wider free market is still free to reject the work of these communes, though. As it should be.

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

[1715530450]

1715530450

[1715530450]

1715530450

[adamstgBit]

it would be the dev's responsibly to use their expertise to present to the miners viable options

From what I have read recently miners can express their support for one of the BIPs in each block - this seems like a reasonable approach to me.

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

[CIYAM]

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

I think the only thing that has "forced" things is Gavin and Mike trying to "rush things". If they didn't jump up and down claiming that Bitcoin was going to die then there wouldn't have been such a rush that has meant that other proposals are being ignored.

Really I don't see that people are using Bitcoin more and more (in fact I no longer use it for any regular spending at all and not one of my friends or family uses it at all) so the whole argument about Bitcoin running out of block space for txs seems rather odd to me (and Sergio's suggestion of using 5 minute blocks actually makes more sense than nearly anything else I've read).

All the "panic" was due to the "stress tests" of a bunch of spam txs that actually didn't stop me (or most other people) doing BTC txs anyway.

[adamstgBit]

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

I think the only thing that has "forced" things is Gavin and Mike trying to "rush things". If they didn't jump up and down claiming that Bitcoin was going to die then there wouldn't have been such a rush that has meant that other proposals are being ignored.

i think we all know this to be true, yet everyone still wants to see bigger blocks.
how do we pick a course of action when either option is viable and no one can agree.
we force the issue by putting it to a vote, one in which nothing will happen until 90% is in agreement.

what can we expect to see?

2 options become clearly dominate, the discussion gets more focused around those two options, the better of the two gets more hashing power, everyone changes their vote to this option because they are driven by the will to see progress not flatter their ego or individual conflict of interest.

[CIYAM]

we force the issue by putting it to a vote, one in which nothing will happen until 90% is in agreement.

Yes - I think something like 90% would stop the hastiness and actually force people to work together (rather than to try and "take over").

Having read various posts from Mike Hearn about supporting "black-lists" (or "red-lists" or whatever) and also the ridiculous effort put into adding support for x801 certs (that seemingly no-one is even using) I don't really think that Gavin and Mike have any credibility to "run the project".

Presumably both of them already have enough money to retire - I'd plead with them to think about just doing that and letting those that actually want to do the hard work get on with just that.

[Carlton Banks]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

[adamstgBit]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

[CIYAM]

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

To a fair extent that should work, however, it should be realised that as Bitcoin mining has become more and more commercialised the "bosses" of said mining operations understand less and less about what it is that they are working with (i.e. they are becoming just "business men" that don't understand the tech at all).

[adamstgBit]

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

To a fair extent that should work, however, it should be realised that as Bitcoin mining has become more and more commercialised the "bosses" of said mining operations understand less and less about what it is that they are working with (i.e. they are becoming just "business men" that don't understand the tech at all).

a million dollar rig is setup clueless as to what bitcoin is and how it works? i'm sure mining operations have a team of poeple well verse in these technical issues. I dont think you paint an arcuate picture of the reality  

[Carlton Banks]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

Ok. I agree that devs are there to implement the will of the network. But only they are placed to know how that can be achieved, in detail. They have the software design skills to do that. The users mostly don't.

[CIYAM]

a million dollar rig is setup clueless as to what bitcoin is and how it works? i'm sure mining operations have a team of poeple well verse in these technical issues. I dont think you paint an arcuate picture of the reality  

Actually I do know something about the reality of rich Chinese that might be the "boss" of a Bitcoin mining company.

Most importantly they have a shitload of money and "guanxi" in order to get the mine set up with cheap electricity and no political issues. The technical know how is just people they employ and the business decisions are not at all "sourced from the technical employees".

Are you seriously telling me that the CEOs of power/telco/whatever companies would ask their engineers about advice for their business decisions (to make an analogy)?

[adamstgBit]

a million dollar rig is setup clueless as to what bitcoin is and how it works? i'm sure mining operations have a team of poeple well verse in these technical issues. I dont think you paint an arcuate picture of the reality  

Actually I do know something about the reality of rich Chinese that might be the "boss" of a mining company.

Most importantly they have a shitload of money and "guanxi" in order to get the mine set up. The technical know how is just people they employ and the business decisions are not "run by the technical employees".

Are you seriously telling me that the CEOs of power companies would ask their engineers about advice for their business decisions?

fuck ya they would

they understand that they need bitcoin to grow in the best possible way to maximize their profit, most definitely they would ask there more knowledgeable staff what they think.

[CIYAM]

they understand that they need bitcoin to grow in the best possible way to maximize their profit, most definitely they would ask there more knowledgeable staff what they think.

You have an interesting but IMO unrealistic view of the world (despite being much smarter than nearly any *boss* I had ever worked for they had they never asked nor accepted my advice about pretty much anything related to their business and that includes at least one company that I helped make rich).

In reality bosses don't care about the opinions of their technical staff - they actually care more about what their friends in high places think (because in general that is far more important to their success and possibly even their very survival if you are working in a corrupt environment).

[brg444]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

What the fuck adam 

This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes.

You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them...

What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.

[brg444]

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago.

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

[adamstgBit]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

What the fuck adam  

This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes.

You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them...

What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.

well like it or not this is currently whats happening with XT, miners will determine weather or not bitcoin forks to XT.

is this the best way to vote on changes? probably not.

i like the hash rate idea, because it jives with what is currently going on, encourages more people to mine so they can participate in the voting. and weeds out non-tech poeple whose vote probably wouldn't have much thought behind it because they can't be bothered to have a mining rig. plus its easy to setup a lot of fake nodes while its impossible to fake hashing power.

maybe a better way would be to have the 1 BTC 1 Vote system in which, bitcoin wallets would cast votes by signing a msg with their wallet?

point is it would be really nice to have a more democratic and decentralized bitcoin dev decision making process, suddenly being thrown into a Core Vs XT war and being forced to pick one of the two extremist options isn't as elegant.

[adamstgBit]

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago.

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

[brg444]

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively  and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

What the fuck adam  

This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes.

You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them...

What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.

well like it or not this is currently whats happening with XT, miners will determine weather or not bitcoin forks to XT.

is this the best way to vote on changes? probably not.

i like the hash rate idea, because it jives with what is currently going on, encourages more people to mine so they can participate in the voting. and weeds out non-tech poeple whose vote probably wouldn't have much thought behind it because they can't be bothered to have a mining rig. plus its easy to setup a lot of fake nodes while its impossible to fake hashing power.

maybe a better way would be to have the 1 BTC 1 Vote system in which, bitcoin wallets would cast votes by signing a msg with their wallet?

point is it would be really nice to have a more democratic and decentralized bitcoin dev decision making process, suddenly being thrown into a Core Vs XT war and being forced to pick one of the two extremist options isn't as elegant.

 

The XT decision will never end up to the miner if there is a node consensus against XT.

You seriously need to reconsider the whole democratic thing. I voted "I don't believe in democracy" because it has failed us times and times again and simply isn't an option. Democracy will have you pretend that every voice is equal. That is absolutely not the case in Bitcoin.

[brg444]

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago.

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

[adamstgBit]

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago.

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.