Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin

[brg444]

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

Would you then agree with the statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

   "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

isnt that an oxymoron?

it obviously wouldn't be the little poeple voting it would be the miners who has invested interest in seeing bitcoin grow in the best possible way. consider the alternative, Core Vs XT, while everyone is ready and willing to increase the block limit, egos and political BS turn a simple update into a full on war.

ultimately the will of the majority will win, this is the nature of bitcoin, try as they might devs will never be able to make changes that a big % of users do not agree with, why not streamline the process so thing happen in a calm and orderly fashion?

You make the classic mistake of assuming all miners are equal. This is somehow typical of classic socialist tendencies to group people of different background, resources, motives and intentions together as if there is somehow a way to generalize and predict their decisions. You need to get rid of that mindset immediately. Miners are individuals and therefore it is foolish to expect them to all share the same ideology as to how Bitcoin should grow.

The consensus nature of Bitcoin is precisely there to defend ourselves against "the willtyranny of the majority" and their master puppeteer.

[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.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

[Peter R]

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.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

Brg444, do you agree with this statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

   "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

[brg444]

i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.

it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process

 

I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about.

[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.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

[brg444]

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.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

Brg444, do you agree with this statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

   "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

Who is "the people"?

I don't want to sound like a broken record but this is, again, meaningless socialist drivel.

There is no such thing as "the people". Only individuals. Now do I agree that some individuals have absolutely no say in the decision making of Bitcoin? Absolutely.

[adamstgBit]

i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.

it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process

 

I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about.

your right BIP 100...105 are all completely different  2MB 8MB   1MB with 5min block, all TOTALLY different!

nope not a miner. but i don't mind giving miners the power to vote on stuff because i know they have vested interest in making bitcoin the best it can be.

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

[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.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!?

The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

[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.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!?

The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

... i'm i being trolled?

answer me this, how is a fork resolved?

[Peter R]

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

I agree.  This 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.  
 

[brg444]

i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.

it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process

 

I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about.

your right BIP 100...105 are all completely different  2MB 8MB   1MB with 5min block, all TOTALLY different!

nope not a miner. but i don't mind giving miners the power to vote on stuff because i know they have invested interest in making bitcoin the best it can be.

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

And that can't happen with miners?

Yes, there are some major differences in the BIP proposed. The most obvious one being growth rate. Sorry but that's just an absolutely stupid thing to say.

[Peter R]

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

And that can't happen with miners?

Yes, it can happen with miners too.  Presently, development is more centralized than mining, however:



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i37m6/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_and/

[adamstgBit]

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

I agree.  This 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.  
 

exactly

[adamstgBit]

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

And that can't happen with miners?

Yes, it can happen with miners too.  Presently, development is more centralized than mining, however:



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i37m6/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_and/

+ each pool can allow its individual miners to choose their prefered BIP which make this decision making process Very decentralized

[TerraMaster]

Would you then agree with the statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

   "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

That being said we do have the voting power of miners and of peers and IMO that should be used to determine the future (and I don't think 75% is enough of a majority for a hard fork which I was rather disappointed to discover XT has decided to use when initial communications had indicated that a 95% majority would be required).

To clarify the confusion - it should not be up to the "general population" to make a vote but up to those who actually are the key participants (in particular the miners).

A 95% consensus would indeed be preferable but on the other hand is a large group of poeple can reach such a consensus? I doubt it. If not, it could also lead to an impasse where consensus is impossible and block any development ( just like what is happening with Core)....

Agree, just reading thru all this. but 95% it may would never be reached and then nothing changes.

[adamstgBit]

Would you then agree with the statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

   "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

That being said we do have the voting power of miners and of peers and IMO that should be used to determine the future (and I don't think 75% is enough of a majority for a hard fork which I was rather disappointed to discover XT has decided to use when initial communications had indicated that a 95% majority would be required).

To clarify the confusion - it should not be up to the "general population" to make a vote but up to those who actually are the key participants (in particular the miners).

A 95% consensus would indeed be preferable but on the other hand is a large group of poeple can reach such a consensus? I doubt it. If not, it could also lead to an impasse where consensus is impossible and block any development ( just like what is happening with Core)....

Agree, just reading thru all this. but 95% it may would never be reached and then nothing changes.

we'd have to test it out but my bet is people will gravitate toward consensus, as soon as we see 1 option  have over 51% it would quickly become 99.9% because everyone wants to see progress not a deadlock...

[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.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!?

The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

... i'm i being trolled?

answer me this, how is a fork resolved?

That is a disingenuous question which is better expressed as "How is an accidental fork resolved" which quite honestly is beside the point.

Now that I'm certain I am being trolled, I won't waste my time and quote directly:

VII. The miners decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned

[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.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!?

The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

... i'm i being trolled?

answer me this, how is a fork resolved?

That is a disingenuous question which is better expressed as "How is an accidental fork resolved" which quite honestly is beside the point.

Now that I'm certain I am being trolled, I won't waste my time and quote directly:

VII. The miners decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned

k fine, how will the XT fork be resolved?

[brg444]

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

And that can't happen with miners?

Yes, it can happen with miners too.  Presently, development is more centralized than mining, however:



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i37m6/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_and/

I see 53% of the network hashrate under a single point of failure: Chinese governement coercion. So much for decentralization heh!

That's not even considering that most of these a pools which can be gamed by miners to create an illusion of decentralization.

[TerraMaster]

a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment

And that can't happen with miners?

Yes, it can happen with miners too.  Presently, development is more centralized than mining, however:



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i37m6/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_and/

+ each pool can allow its individual miners to choose their prefered BIP which make this decision making process Very decentralized

That's right, and as far as I know Slushes pool may be the only one offering a choice as to mine on core or XT. His pool found the first block and probably all 3 blocks that have been found thus far. But a miner can stop and switch back over to core mining.

Now put a system like that in place on most of the big pools and you would see within a few days which way people/miners are leaning, since nothing will happen until 750 XT of the last 1000 blocks occurs. (chain wise) So if the pool operators do not mind accommodating 2 or 3 different Bips for a popular vote per se'  then what you suggested in the beginning would work. With the onus being on the devs to produce Bips 1 2 3 and pool ops willing to accommodate.

Again, not to say changes are needed for future growth. But a larger voice in the decision/consensus making would always be nice