Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin

[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/

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.

"Chinese governement coercion" LOL

look 100% of the network is ran by humans, decentralized my ass.

troll on troll on.

[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

k fine, how will the XT fork be resolved?

By general consensus that XT was DOA and every simpleton running an XT node (or pretend ones https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/) coming back home to core with their heads down once the adults have carefully managed to put forward a sensible proposition that slowly but surely gains consensus.

[brg444]

"Chinese governement coercion" LOL

look 100% of the network is ran by humans, decentralized my ass.

troll on troll on.

I never thought I'd say this but it is obvious at that point that the dynamics at stake are well beyond your understanding.

Better keep quiet while everything sorts itself out.

[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

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. 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

right ya its all about getting voices heard, and seeing peoples opinion change as the debate rages on, to the inevitable conclusion where 90% of the network find itself in 1 camp

IMO had we done this from the start we'd see overwhelming support for 2MB increase on core. it does the trick without any major implications, most agree we want bigger blocks and this would be a small step everyone could get behind.

[TerraMaster]

To adamstgBit's point:


Slush pool

August 19 at 10:37am.

We don't tell you if big or small. It's your choice!

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.
 Simply use one of following mining URL to do so:

stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
 stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
 stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301

Please note that voting does not affect Bitcoin network in any way at least until 1.1.2016.

[brg444]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

[adamstgBit]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

[brg444]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

So you understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75%* of nodes support... but a couple posts before you argue that miners are the ones calling the shot...

*That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

[adamstgBit]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

also as it stand we haven't many options, the vote could have been done on every single BIP, with maybe a few rounds of voting each round would eliminate the lowest BIP option?

[brg444]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

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

[adamstgBit]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

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

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

[brg444]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

also as it stand we haven't many options, the vote could have been done on every single BIP, with maybe a few rounds of voting each round would eliminate the lowest BIP option?

It seems to me what you want (miners voting) is actually happening as we speak. I'm not sure what difference you propose?

[brg444]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

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

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

 

Sure let's use hyperboles to try and support our points. My turn:

No one cares if 90% of the miners turn their hashing power to Aurora coins, the Bitcoin network remains although it witnesses a significant drop in its hash rate. The network doesn't fucking fork to Auroracoin does it?

[adamstgBit]

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin  too  )

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

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

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

 

Sure let's use hyperboles to try and support our points. My turn:

No one cares if 90% of the miners turn their hashing power to Aurora coins, the Bitcoin network remains although it witnesses a significant drop in its hash rate. The network doesn't fucking fork to Auroracoin does it?

it does!

bitpay public stated that it will use wtv blockchain has the most hashing power behind it.

idk what to tell you this is just an idea i have to make the forking process more tolerable, I like the idea that bitcoin can fork, and i'd like to see it happen more often, i like to think this is how bitcoin will progress,

[adamstgBit]

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

[brg444]

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

What good has ever come out of democracy?

[brg444]

it does!

bitpay public stated that it will use wtv blockchain has the most hashing power behind it.

idk what to tell you this is just an idea i have to make the forking process more tolerable, I like the idea that bitcoin can fork, and i'd like to see it happen more often, i like to think this is how bitcoin will progress,

*facepalm*

TIL the miners = the network

Bitcoin will not progress by forking everytime a new issue or challenge comes up.

The difficulty in consensus you are witnessing will only grow larger as adoption increases. Ultimately you should want the Bitcoin core protocol to ossify and require little to no change once it is considered good enough.

Bitcoin will progress by building layers on top of it. Just like any economy grows.

[macsga]

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

I bet those people are the most rational among all of us (FWIW: I didn't vote for that). Democracy is just another dead word that describes a dead concept, in (an almost) dead ancient language. Theoretically it exists, but in practice it's very much dead. This is a pretty long conversation and let me remind you that the above text comes from a Greek.  

[onemorexmr]

i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.

maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).

imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.

the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.

edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.

[brg444]

i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.

maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).

imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.

the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.

edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.

Enter sidechains and payment networks.