Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin

[adamstgBit]

I really doubt this is the last of the disagreements devs will face when it comes to forking bitcoin soft or hard, there is clearly a demand for this "voting system"; already something like it has manifested itself in a half baked manner. see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0

there no question development would benefit from being able to poll the network, and i believe everyone would appreciate being asked to vote.

here are a few thoughts about the details that might make this process more streamlined:

by default when a new set of BIPs are set up for voting, mining a block without making any change to the version number would indicate undecided or not voting, same would go for the BTC, and this hashing power / BTC would not be tallied on the pie charts. we could assume undecided votes would side with the voting majority.

all voting would have the option "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change"

when a BIP is modified all votes for that BIP go back to undecided, a new version number / BTC address will be attributed to this modified BIP.

when consuseus appears to have been reached, devs are free to fork( soft or hard ) the software despite any disagreement they may still have internally ( this is in fact always possible, it would simply be more socially acceptable to fork to something the network is in full agreement with even tho some devs don't like it. )

to encourage consensus building, BIPs with the lowest approval rating would be periodically knocked off, and all its votes setback to  undecided. included the possibility of knocking off  "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" in which case it would become clear that SOME KIND of change is deemed necessary by all those voting.

Adam.

If you would have followed the dev list at all in the last year you would have realized a plethora of similar proposition have been suggested and would always be rejected with a consensual NACK for many obvious reasons. There is essentially no practical way to identify, qualify & quantify users in the network so as to "weight" their "votes".

hashing power And amount of BTC ??

when someone uses a 50BTC wallet to send 0.001BTC to an address associated with voting for BIPXXX add 50votes the to economic majority pie chart
when blocks are minted with a version associated with voting for BIPXXX add it to the Hashing power pie chart

easy as pie.

its happening one way or the other.... why fight it?

As gool ol Romanian chap Mircea would say : read the logs.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/

and i'd tell him to look around.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0
people want this, why not its a pie chart!! who doesn't like pie charts 

[brg444]

I really doubt this is the last of the disagreements devs will face when it comes to forking bitcoin soft or hard, there is clearly a demand for this "voting system"; already something like it has manifested itself in a half baked manner. see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0

there no question development would benefit from being able to poll the network, and i believe everyone would appreciate being asked to vote.

here are a few thoughts about the details that might make this process more streamlined:

by default when a new set of BIPs are set up for voting, mining a block without making any change to the version number would indicate undecided or not voting, same would go for the BTC, and this hashing power / BTC would not be tallied on the pie charts. we could assume undecided votes would side with the voting majority.

all voting would have the option "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change"

when a BIP is modified all votes for that BIP go back to undecided, a new version number / BTC address will be attributed to this modified BIP.

when consuseus appears to have been reached, devs are free to fork( soft or hard ) the software despite any disagreement they may still have internally ( this is in fact always possible, it would simply be more socially acceptable to fork to something the network is in full agreement with even tho some devs don't like it. )

to encourage consensus building, BIPs with the lowest approval rating would be periodically knocked off, and all its votes setback to  undecided. included the possibility of knocking off  "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" in which case it would become clear that SOME KIND of change is deemed necessary by all those voting.

Adam.

If you would have followed the dev list at all in the last year you would have realized a plethora of similar proposition have been suggested and would always be rejected with a consensual NACK for many obvious reasons. There is essentially no practical way to identify, qualify & quantify users in the network so as to "weight" their "votes".

hashing power And amount of BTC ??

when someone uses a 50BTC wallet to send 0.001BTC to an address associated with voting for BIPXXX add 50votes the to economic majority pie chart
when blocks are minted with a version associated with voting for BIPXXX add it to the Hashing power pie chart

easy as pie.

its happening one way or the other.... why fight it?

As gool ol Romanian chap Mircea would say : read the logs.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/

and i'd tell him to look around.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0
people want this, why not its a pie chart!! who doesn't like pie charts 

"The people want this" 

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I thought Bitcoin was exactly about putting a check on unreasonable people demand. Guess that was underestimating "the people"

[adamstgBit]

"The people want this"  

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I thought Bitcoin was exactly about putting a check on unreasonable people demand. Guess that was underestimating "the people"

you're being unreasonable.

bitcoin is about getting everyone to agree to the same rules.

this thread is about making that easier when changing the rules.

[marcus_of_augustus]

"The people want this"  

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I thought Bitcoin was exactly about putting a check on unreasonable people demand. Guess that was underestimating "the people"

you're being unreasonable.

bitcoin is about getting everyone to agree to the same rules.

this thread is about making that easier when changing the rules.

what other rules are up for debate .... ? shall we corral and brigade the mobs to clamour for permanent bitcoin inflation now that network fees are being rendered useless as a technology?

[adamstgBit]

"The people want this"  

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I thought Bitcoin was exactly about putting a check on unreasonable people demand. Guess that was underestimating "the people"

you're being unreasonable.

bitcoin is about getting everyone to agree to the same rules.

this thread is about making that easier when changing the rules.

what other rules are up for debate .... ? shall we corral and brigade the mobs to clamour for permanent bitcoin inflation now that network fees are being rendered useless as a technology?

no, no one would agree to that, but it might be fun to put that to a vote and see how fast hashing power comes to the consensus that it shouldn't do this.

idk how about transaction manubility?

kinda hard to imagine there wont be anymore debating with the devs
maybe we wont have such a crazy debate as block size limit for a long time, but does not mean being able to poll the network couldn't help them make better decisions, maybe dev are going to run out of work once block size limit is implemented, who knows!

[shmadz]

Yo, Adam, check it out. This guy totally stole your idea...

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/23/articles-of-bitcoin-constitution-a-genesis-block-of-governance/