We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus!

[BitProdigy]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

[maokoto]

Agree. The best would be that the developers took consensus as a number one priority, not being rigid in their own ideas.

[dothebeats]

I don't think that proposing such a contradictory process to bitcoin's concept is appealing and in general, positive. Why would this man look for a central authority to impose decisions rather than the network coming up to a consensus? That sounds a bit controlling for me.

.."but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time."..

Gavin was the lead dev before he left his post, but that doesn't mean that most of the technical issues and problems that bitcoin faced on the past were resolved only by the proposals of Gavin. It's like giving him all the credit while other developers spent and dedicated their time and effort to the project. This, I call, is BS.

"..Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in."

Yes, there is no consensus building process that exists, but does this guy think that centralization would fix things and put things into its rightful and perfect state?

[DannyHamilton]

Consensus is great if all the participants have the same general goal.

It is impossible if the participants have significantly different and incompatible goals.

In that situation, the best you're going to get with your proposal is either:

Democracy with exile:  Anyone that refuses to accept a compromise that the majority of participants find reasonable is simply accused of making "it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success" and is therefore exiled from participating in the process at all.  The process repeats until all those that disagree with the majority have been exiled.  The remaining (non-exiled) participants therefore have 100% consensus.

Stagnation: Those with different goals than the majority can simply refuse to accept any "compromise".  They can furthermore continuously propose "compromises" that are unacceptable to the majority of the participants. The decision making process gets help up indefinitely, and changes that most sensible people feel are important and urgent don't get implemented.

[countryfree]

The "Central trusted authority", this is what the BTC Foundation was supposed to be. Most people don't want it anymore so we have to find how that new commanding group will be any different.

A good start to find a consensus would be to set a modest goal. Implementing changes one by one. Small steps by small steps.

[TransaDox]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

[Meuh6879]

Keep calm ... and wait FIAT collapse. 

[adamstgBit]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

[brg444]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea.

[adamstgBit]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea.

i don't see why, voting can be anonymous... all we would be aware of is some BTC address with 25K BTC signed a message saying "BIP100"

[poeEDgar]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

But there isn't a mechanism by which this could achieve anything. Stakeholders in the POS sense do not (and should not) have a vote in a POW system. This is what we signed up for when we became bitcoiners.....

Plus, what stops me from sending coins back and forth from an exchange to new addresses, which I would sign as if I were a "new" voter?

[adamstgBit]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

But there isn't a mechanism by which this could achieve anything. Stakeholders in the POS sense do not (and should not) have a vote in a POW system. This is what we signed up for when we became bitcoiners.....

Plus, what stops me from sending coins back and forth from an exchange to new addresses, which I would sign as if I were a "new" voter?

good catch, moving the coins would mean there vote is worth 0. periodically a computer would check all the signed messages and the current BTC balance in the signing address.

just because the system itself only cares about miners, this doesn't mean users opinion is irrelevant, minner might actuly look to see where economic marjory settles before casting their vote, after all the happier the user base is the more profit they can make with the BTC the mine.

[poeEDgar]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

But there isn't a mechanism by which this could achieve anything. Stakeholders in the POS sense do not (and should not) have a vote in a POW system. This is what we signed up for when we became bitcoiners.....

Plus, what stops me from sending coins back and forth from an exchange to new addresses, which I would sign as if I were a "new" voter?

good catch, moving the coins would mean there vote is worth 0. periodically a computer would check all the signed messages and the current BTC balance in the signing address.

just because the system itself only cares about miners, this doesn't mean users opinion is irrelevant, minner might actuly look to see where economic marjory settles before casting their vote, after all the happier the user base is the more profit they can make with the BTC the mine.

Yeah, that's fair enough. Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion.

[adamstgBit]

Yeah, that's fair enough. Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion.

individual's opinion aren't as interesting as the opinion of everyone put together.
if 75% of poeple vote for 1 out of 3 seemingly equally valid BIPs you can bet your ass there is something special about that particular BIP.
if one person is making a lot of noise about his favored BIP it's not as convincing...

also lets consider whats we're seeing now miners are voting for BIP100 with a strong majority, BIP100 give miners more power so of course they will tend to vote for this option. probably BTC votes would not show such a strong majority favoring BIP100.

I think giving devs this information ( what minner want, what Investors want, what Large bitcoin entities want) is absolutely critical for them to make the "best" decision.

what is the best decision if not one which satisfies as many poeple in the different groups?

[RGBKey]

Consensus worked for bitcoin back when everyone knew how the system worked. I'm not sure it's possible now, when people don't even understand core concepts.

[lottery248]

are you crazy?
no democracy, no government that most of the people wants.

[adamstgBit]

are you crazy?
no democracy, no government that most of the people wants.

are you crazy?

there is a government its called gavain

oh wait no, now its called a handful of devs all in disagreement.

[adamstgBit]

Consensus worked for bitcoin back when everyone knew how the system worked. I'm not sure it's possible now, when people don't even understand core concepts.

its silly to think someone would bother to vote if he didn't even bother to understand core concepts, if all this pointless Discussion on bitcointalk.org proves anything, it is that poeple understand the fundamentals pretty darn well...

[brg444]

Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin.

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with.

With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on.

What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus.

This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM.

Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important?

The really interesting idea is:
If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea.

i don't see why, voting can be anonymous... all we would be aware of is some BTC address with 25K BTC signed a message saying "BIP100"

Most Bitcoins are sitting on cold storage or paper wallet, it is a security risk anytime you access them.

[adamstgBit]

One of the core principles behind bitcoin is that nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin. By making it easier for everyone to express their acceptance of a potential change, we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus and roll out changes according to the original design of Bitcoin, while limiting potential forks created when changes are implemented without knowing whether or not the changes will be accepted by the network.

imagine the mess we would be in if XT gained 35% of hash rate power.... that shit NEEDS to be avoided at all cost.