Experiment - Achieving consensus where there is disagreement

[DannyHamilton]

If you set the vote limit at 75%, then once you reach that limit you have 100% consensus. The 25% can fork off and die; else join the 100% consenting group.  

Finally someone that gets it.

A consensus protocol like bitcoin is ALWAYS 100% of the participants.  That's what consensus means.

If the fork triggers at 5%, you'll still have 100% consensus of the participants.  You'll just have it with a very insecure system since you won't have enough hash power to keep your blockchain secure against an attack.

This is the reason that 75% of the blocks (not 75% of the miners, and not 75% of the nodes) was chosen.  The miners aren't "voting".  They are simply stating that they are willing to use their hash power to secure the blockchain.  Once it is clear that there is enough hash power behind the idea, it becomes "safe" to split off.  The remaining hash power is welcome to continue to support their old blockchain if they want to, but they'll be supporting a relatively insecure system.

Pretty much every altcoin is just a fork of bitcoin that just happens to trigger at the genesis block.  This means that bitcoin already has less than 100% of the "vote" of all crypto-currency participants.  What percentage does it have?  Does it matter?  All that matters is that it has enough hash power to remain secure.  If a hard fork is implemented and less than 100% of the current miners choose to participate, then there will be two bitcoin systems.  One of them will be more secure than the other.  How much more secure will depend on the exact distribution of hash power between them.

They might both choose to call themselves "bitcoin" (which will lead to some confusion with the users) or they may choose to change their name to clear up some of that confusion.  Perhaps the old protocol will change to "LegacyBitcoin"  or perhaps the new protocol will change to "Bitcoin2016".  That's really up to the users to decide.

[adamstgBit]

If there are 3 perfectly valid BIPs and one of them gets 90% hashing power it's a no brainer, that BIP is somehow far superior.

90% is idealy
75% is a threshold

if we could get all the 90%'ters to switch their vote i could donate some BTC...

if you still not convinced about 75% read this, or read the thread.

consider this, if you set the bar for minimal hashing at 95% a large miner or pool can single handedly veto the change and ruin it for everyone else, in which case it's likely that the network would simply go ahead with the change anyway. 95% is ideal but not a good minimal limit.

75% is best because:

1) winning all the votes isnt easy.
2) 75% indicates that the BIP is somehow superior, to the other perfectly valid BIPs.
3) what individual miners want doesn't matter. in the end miners will mine the most popular chain, because $_$
4) 25% wouldn't be able to do any serious damage to new chain even if they ALL worked together to try and break BTC ( this highly unlikely, most will just accept the new chain and be thankful they got a chance to vote )
5) 75% is high enough to make sure the BIP by and large addresses most people's concerns, it wouldn't be easy to get 75%, its likely the BIP would have the make some changes along the way to TRY and accommodate everyone.
6) Miners do not necessarily disagree with that BIP but would rather another BIP win all the votes. Its unlikely all losing miners would turn on the network in anger... I don't go causing a riot when a gov election wins with a minority vote.
if all BIPs were all equally good you'd expect the voting to reflect that.
having 75% pretty much guarantees that that BIP is some how superior

that's why everyone needs to agree, 75% is pretty damn good. 80% is good, 90%+ is a no brainer implement the change right away! 100% = the change has been fully accepted by the network.

 
90%'ter argument is basicly "i'm scared that 2 forks will be created"

[adamstgBit]

The miners aren't "voting".  They are simply stating that they are willing to use their hash power to secure the blockchain.

but are they necessarily saying that they wouldn't secure the blockchain should there BIP they are supporting lose?

probably not...

probably they are expressing a preference.

[coins101]

There is no prospect of an agreement on this survey.

What next? This will just get kicked down the road until there is some urgency.

Perhaps, someone will fork this thread? In fact, if you don't agree on an outcome within the next 8 days, I will fork the thread to an XAdam Experiment and the children will get their donation - 75% will be the only survey choice.

I will also cover the non-XAdam Experiment thread option - but that will not have a survey 

[adamstgBit]

its likely poeple will vote for BIP101 while not being opposed to BIP100, they simply prefer BIP101, but will  happily update to BIP100 onces the decision has been made. 90% doesn't allow for miners to vote for their preference, it forces them to vote for what they think everyone else will vote for.

[adamstgBit]

i will donate 10BTC should the poll report 90% for one option

[coins101]

i will donate 10BTC should the poll report 90% for one option

To the children of this forum or those in greater need?

[johnyj]

say there is a new BIP,
3 BIPs
dev say hey lets ask the miners again
everyone votes,
votes are: 31% 31% 32%
devs say "fuck it lets go with BIP100"
they all agree " fine lets go with it"
the change is implemented
price goes up
miners are happy.
everyone is happy!

so it really depends

75% is wonderful.

if your vote is not 75% you answered the question incorrectly, please try again. 

Gold never changes in thousands of years. If bitcoin is to become the new digital gold, it should have similar properties: Immune to human's influence

Basically the bitcoin's fundamental principles are all set, so in principle any BIP should be rejected unless reaching 100% consensus. If bitcoin really have some problem, then consensus will reach to improve it

[adamstgBit]

Gold never changes in thousands of years. If bitcoin is to become the new digital gold, it should have similar properties: Immune to human's influence

Basically the bitcoin's fundamental principles are all set, so in principle any BIP should be rejected unless reaching 100% consensus. If bitcoin really have some problem, then consensus will reach to improve it

gold can't change, bitcoin can, its a feature not a bug. I agree no change shouldn't be made lightly,  but it's unrealistic to think bitcoin can't improve and should not. maybe in 10 years everything will be fully ironed out and there will literally be no point in ever changing anything, then again at that point we might want to enable the scripting language bitcoin was designed to handle. and then open up the door to all kinds of possible improvements in the scripting language.

[kelsey]

Gold never changes in thousands of years. If bitcoin is to become the new digital gold, it should have similar properties: Immune to human's influence

Basically the bitcoin's fundamental principles are all set, so in principle any BIP should be rejected unless reaching 100% consensus. If bitcoin really have some problem, then consensus will reach to improve it

gold can't change, bitcoin can, its a feature not a bug. I agree no change shouldn't be made lightly,  but it's unrealistic to think bitcoin can't improve and should not. maybe in 10 years everything will be fully ironed out and there will literally be no point in ever changing anything, then again at that point we might want to enable the scripting language bitcoin was designed to handle. and then open up the door to all kinds of possible improvements in the scripting language.

yes but then bitcoin should still be classed as beta, and blockchain reset when it comes out of beta.

[adamstgBit]

Gold never changes in thousands of years. If bitcoin is to become the new digital gold, it should have similar properties: Immune to human's influence

Basically the bitcoin's fundamental principles are all set, so in principle any BIP should be rejected unless reaching 100% consensus. If bitcoin really have some problem, then consensus will reach to improve it

gold can't change, bitcoin can, its a feature not a bug. I agree no change shouldn't be made lightly,  but it's unrealistic to think bitcoin can't improve and should not. maybe in 10 years everything will be fully ironed out and there will literally be no point in ever changing anything, then again at that point we might want to enable the scripting language bitcoin was designed to handle. and then open up the door to all kinds of possible improvements in the scripting language.

yes but then bitcoin should still be classed as beta, and blockchain reset when it comes out of beta.

reset the blockchain

no.

and, do we have windowsBeta or windows95,NT,XP,7,10???

[Za1n]

I think this experiment was a complete success in proving that you can achieve dissensus without too much effort.

[ABitNut]

I think this experiment was a complete success in proving that you can achieve dissensus without too much effort.

If you group the votes in 90% or up and less than 90% you get an almost perfect 50-50 split at the moment