Voting for block size increase proposals

[nLockTime]

There are several proposals for optimizing Bitcoin's scalability:

BIP100 - Periodically change the limit based on block size vote by miners
BIP101 - Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years (will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp, and shall be 8GB after 20 years)
BIP102 - Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015
BIP103 - Block size according to technological growth
BIP105 - Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
BIP106 - Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
BIP8MB - Increase to 8 MB
BIPRosenfeld - Elastic block cap with rollover penalties

I suggest the following message syntax for voting anywhere in the internet for any BIP published on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

The syntax is:

Code:

#BITCOINVOTE {vote version} {bitcoin address} {+|-|=}{BIP id} {+|-|=}{BIP id} ...
{signature}

For example:

Code:

#BITCOINVOTE 201508251200 12WRTDrnLy7FMHj8b4kNWPJgnDfseTK6cX =BIP100 +BIP101 -BIP102
H1TmFhlXT8vPnbWsLWDPs2qbWRWA1htZIuCd/Avts/OzaVsWfWcIzfOCqO9w/FmnQEkjve8UU4kZtEtoIN1CpEg=

where

201508251200 - (optional) vote version number or date (in format YYYYMMDDHHMM)
12WRT...K6cX - vote weight is proportional to balance of this address
=BIP100      - (optional) abstain from voting for BIP100
+BIP101      - (optional) vote for BIP101
-BIP102      - (optional) vote against BIP102
H1Tm...CpEg= - message signature

Special voting options:
{+|-|=}BIGBLOCK - to vote on all proposals relating to the increasing of block size
+MINERS - to withdraw in favour of miners decision
+DEVS - to withdraw in favour of developers decision
+HOLDERS - to support the decision of the majority of bitcoin holders

Automated service for voting
 
User friendly interface is available here: http://coinarchy.com

Note that you can participate in the voting process even if you temporarily do not have access to the private keys of your bitcoins.
There is an option to enter addresses without signature and also number of your bitcoins on various services. Then enter your email address and you will be notified if your additional vote is needed for decision-making

Current results

BIP101 +2500.00 / -367.68
BIP105 +246.84 / -0.00
BIP102 +266.84 / -99.99
BIPRosenfeld +153.44 / -0.00
BIP100 +0.85 / -198.82
BIP8MB +0.00 / -198.82
BIP103 +0.00 / -342.48
BIP106 +0.00 / -2500.00

DEVS +0.036
BIP16 +0.000 / -20.000

You can find signatures here: http://coinarchy.com/results

[1715060666]

1715060666

[1715060666]

1715060666

[1715060666]

1715060666

[RocketSingh]

There are four proposals for optimizing Bitcoin's scalability:

No. There are more, e.g. https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki

A few others can be found here as well: http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/

[achow101]

There are many more proposals than just those 4, although they don't have BIP numbers yet. There is also another thread that is already doing this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.0.

And why are you calling it BIP101 voting when this is clearly voting for more than just BIP 101?

[nLockTime]

And why are you calling it BIP101 voting when this is clearly voting for more than just BIP 101?

Only BIP101 is approved on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips. You can vote for other BIP with the condition that its ID will remain unchanged

[nLockTime]

User friendly interface is available on http://coinarchy.com
Just answer the questions and submit the form

[jonny1000]

BIP100 - Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB

BIP100 has nothing to do with "observed block size", miners vote for the limit using any criteria they like.  Rational miners should vote to maximize their own revenue.

Mining revenue = Block reward * exchange rate + average transaction fee * transaction volume * exchange rate

[-ck]

BIP100 - Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB

Incorrect - periodically change the limit based on block size vote by miners.

[Carlton Banks]

nLockTime, what if someone proposed a vote about how much of your money we all get to have? Would you vote in that poll? Sorry, but the only person who can control what gets into Bitcoin source are the people with commit access to the repo.

Yes, centralised. That's the model that works for software development. Where would this voting nonsense end? The alternative is to make development "equal opportunities", anyone and everyone gets a turn at designing and patching! Have fun with the coin you end up with using that development model 

[hexafraction]

Yes, centralised. That's the model that works for software development. Where would this voting nonsense end? The alternative is to make development "equal opportunities", anyone and everyone gets a turn at designing and patching! Have fun with the coin you end up with using that development model 

No, you're free to operate and mine on whatever client you want. If you're forked off the network, it's your fault.

Anyway, I don't see BIP103 in the list on the site linked.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes, centralised. That's the model that works for software development. Where would this voting nonsense end? The alternative is to make development "equal opportunities", anyone and everyone gets a turn at designing and patching! Have fun with the coin you end up with using that development model  

No, you're free to operate and mine on whatever client you want. If you're forked off the network, it's your fault.

Not the user decision. That's not centralised. I didn't say that. I was talking about the development process. Not mining. It contributes to meaningful discussion if you read what you're replying to.

[hexafraction]

Yes, centralised. That's the model that works for software development. Where would this voting nonsense end? The alternative is to make development "equal opportunities", anyone and everyone gets a turn at designing and patching! Have fun with the coin you end up with using that development model  

No, you're free to operate and mine on whatever client you want. If you're forked off the network, it's your fault.

Not the user decision. That's not centralised. I didn't say that. I was talking about the development process. Not mining. It contributes to meaningful discussion if you read what you're replying to.

I'm interpreting your statement in a slightly different manner than you may have intended. By modifying my own software, I am contributing to the overall development of the collection of software capable of processing, relaying, or mining transactions, assuming I'm also making it available. Additionally, by sharing it, I'm making it possible for anyone to pick up on those changes and use them on their own copy, or integrate them into a centrally-developed program.

On the other hand, nearly all the software that is USED is developed in a centralized fashion, but that doesn't apply to the overall process itself.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes, centralised. That's the model that works for software development. Where would this voting nonsense end? The alternative is to make development "equal opportunities", anyone and everyone gets a turn at designing and patching! Have fun with the coin you end up with using that development model  

No, you're free to operate and mine on whatever client you want. If you're forked off the network, it's your fault.

Not the user decision. That's not centralised. I didn't say that. I was talking about the development process. Not mining. It contributes to meaningful discussion if you read what you're replying to.

I'm interpreting your statement in a slightly different manner than you may have intended. By modifying my own software, I am contributing to the overall development of the collection of software capable of processing, relaying, or mining transactions, assuming I'm also making it available. Additionally, by sharing it, I'm making it possible for anyone to pick up on those changes and use them on their own copy, or integrate them into a centrally-developed program.

On the other hand, nearly all the software that is USED is developed in a centralized fashion, but that doesn't apply to the overall process itself.

I see. Apologies for being terse, but your reply sounded like you were talking about a whole other topic. Call it BIP burn.

That's an interesting expansion on the way development works in practice, and I recognise what you're talking about from browsing around on Github. There are frequently forked projects with tiny differences, and it's totally plausible that the differences in these pet projects could end up ported to the main project (or that the tiny fork usurps the original). The more access there is to the code we use everyday, and the more we depend on that, I wonder whether this might become a trend.

There will always be a small set of people or an individual with sole commit access, necessarily so. But as you say, if someone forks that project and finds a significant enough userbase, the status of the previous dev team is being manifestly questioned. Overall, it's a good thing. I think we're all aware that it can be abused as well, particularly with consensus critical p2p networks.

[nLockTime]

jonny1000, -ck, hexafraction,
Thank you. A brief descridption of BIP100 has been upated, BIPSIPA has been renamed to BIP103.

what if someone proposed a vote about how much of your money we all get to have? Would you vote in that poll?

People with commit access to the repo don't own the Bitcoin network.

Anyway the final decision will be made by bitcoin holders. If miners will support some nonsense BIP the people who disagree will cease using the system by "voting" for alternative stores of value. The purpose of suggested poll is to opportunely prevent this development.

[Carlton Banks]

what if someone proposed a vote about how much of your money we all get to have? Would you vote in that poll?

People with commit access to the repo don't own the Bitcoin network.

Anyway the final decision will be made by bitcoin holders. If miners will support some nonsense BIP the people who disagree will cease using the system by "voting" for alternative stores of value. The purpose of suggested poll is to opportunely prevent this development.

Allow me to understand: is it a blockchain fork you want to prevent? (not Core vs XT, but BIP vs BIP?) Your idea is that the miners will have accurate information about the will of the users, and choose that option unanimously?

[amaclin]

Bitcoin-qt doesn't provide any option for bitcoin holders to take part in voting for a solution of scalability issue.

Wrong. You can vote.
Just put the pattern into coinbase transaction, recompile code and execute "setgenerate true" in your debug console.
Your vote will be counted when you find block 

[newIndia]

Bitcoin-qt doesn't provide any option for bitcoin holders to take part in voting for a solution of scalability issue.

Wrong. You can vote.
Just put the pattern into coinbase transaction, recompile code and execute "setgenerate true" in your debug console.
Your vote will be counted when you find block 

The catch

[amaclin]

The catch

This is the bitcoin way for consensus. Anything else is just speculation.

[newIndia]

The catch

This is the bitcoin miner's way for consensus. Anything else is just speculation unknown so far.

FTFY...

[nLockTime]

Allow me to understand: is it a blockchain fork you want to prevent? (not Core vs XT, but BIP vs BIP?) Your idea is that the miners will have accurate information about the will of the users, and choose that option unanimously?

Yes, this would be the most profitable solution for all. On the whole I want to prevent the split of the community.

This is the bitcoin way for consensus. Anything else is just speculation.

Miners role is to prevent double spending, but not to decide whether pull requests should be accepted.

[Carlton Banks]

Allow me to understand: is it a blockchain fork you want to prevent? (not Core vs XT, but BIP vs BIP?) Your idea is that the miners will have accurate information about the will of the users, and choose that option unanimously?

Yes, this would be the most profitable solution for all. On the whole I want to prevent the split of the community.

What makes you think the information collected from the poll will be an accurate reflection of the will of the community?