We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus!

[johnyj]

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.

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process

There could be ways to reward the consensus building and punish the opposite. For example, the community first makes several consensus candidates, then holds 3 rounds of opinion poll. Everyone's opinion has a weight factor, if one's opinion is not the major consensus, next time his opinion will have a much less weight, like 50%, if he's opinion is with the majority, he will regain his 100% weight. By this means, those who constantly going against the majority will have less and less influence on the final decision

So when you know that your opinion is against the major consensus, it is time to rethink why there are so many people supporting the major consensus and adjust your position accordingly. The basic principle is that consensus have the highest priority, the participants gains most when they join the major consensus

[DannyHamilton]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

Sure you can reduce the influence that you allow to those that disagree with the majority, but that isn't "consensus", that's "majority wins" democracy. It's just another form of "exile".  Instead of immediately rejecting their input, you slowly remove their input until their input becomes meaningless.

[brg444]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

[freedombit]

So when you know that your opinion is against the major consensus, it is time to rethink why there are so many people supporting the major consensus and adjust your position accordingly.

This sort of sounds like the politics of a democracy. If you are in the minority, you may want to rethink your desires and adjust you plan accordingly.

[tadakaluri]

The Social consensus, which we need 'discussion among developers to indicate that most people agree with a particular plan'.

[freedombit]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

Consensus sounds like a great idea, but may not always work. Democracy may not work either. A dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent, can make things happen very quickly and win a game in the right circumstances. One of those circumstances might be if a democracy or consensus is stuck in minutia, missing a bigger picture, while a dictatorship conceives and idea and quickly executes it overtaking both consensus and democracy.

I hope that Bitcoin can find consensus, but will settle for democracy. I do not want dictatorship. Certainly more than one dictatorship with concepts already.

[freedombit]

Keep calm ... and wait FIAT collapse. 

Agreed, but infinity is a very large number. FIAT really can go on a very long time.

[brg444]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

Consensus sounds like a great idea, but may not always work. Democracy may not work either. A dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent, can make things happen very quickly and win a game in the right circumstances. One of those circumstances might be if a democracy or consensus is stuck in minutia, missing a bigger picture, while a dictatorship conceives and idea and quickly executes it overtaking both consensus and democracy.

I hope that Bitcoin can find consensus, but will settle for democracy. I do not want dictatorship. Certainly more than one dictatorship with concepts already.

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

The rest of your concerns are absolutely valid and amount to what Hayek referred to as the "Road to Serfdom"

[freedombit]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

Consensus sounds like a great idea, but may not always work. Democracy may not work either. A dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent, can make things happen very quickly and win a game in the right circumstances. One of those circumstances might be if a democracy or consensus is stuck in minutia, missing a bigger picture, while a dictatorship conceives and idea and quickly executes it overtaking both consensus and democracy.

I hope that Bitcoin can find consensus, but will settle for democracy. I do not want dictatorship. Certainly more than one dictatorship with concepts already.

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

The rest of your concerns are absolutely valid and amount to what Hayek referred to as the "Road to Serfdom"

You may be right. This is the first I've seen the idea of consensus on a political/government scale, and need to consider it more, especially in light of the power of technology. However, my first gut reaction is that consensus is not possible. I see two immediate concerns:

1) No two people think 100% alike, and the minority in a consensus must concede to the majority anyhow. I think maybe a democracy is more honest in that an actual vote takes place. Vote can be traded, based on importance. Hence, politics come in to play. (Yuck, but reality).

2) If one person refuses to a consensus, either the rest of the consensus moves on without them (in which we are back to a dictatorship  by democracy), or consensus never occurs and a decision is not made. This can work for a while, but evolution does not stop.



Ultimately, the beauty of Bitcoin is the open source nature and the ability for anyone to use it how they please. What I have realized is that the ability to freely pick and choose your money is more important than ever. Any impediment to currency exchange and transmission, no matter what form it takes, is an assault on human rights and dignity.

[adamstgBit]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

[brg444]

Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.

If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

Consensus sounds like a great idea, but may not always work. Democracy may not work either. A dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent, can make things happen very quickly and win a game in the right circumstances. One of those circumstances might be if a democracy or consensus is stuck in minutia, missing a bigger picture, while a dictatorship conceives and idea and quickly executes it overtaking both consensus and democracy.

I hope that Bitcoin can find consensus, but will settle for democracy. I do not want dictatorship. Certainly more than one dictatorship with concepts already.

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

The rest of your concerns are absolutely valid and amount to what Hayek referred to as the "Road to Serfdom"

You may be right. This is the first I've seen the idea of consensus on a political/government scale, and need to consider it more, especially in light of the power of technology. However, my first gut reaction is that consensus is not possible. I see two immediate concerns:

1) No two people think 100% alike, and the minority in a consensus must concede to the majority anyhow. I think maybe a democracy is more honest in that an actual vote takes place. Vote can be traded, based on importance. Hence, politics come in to play. (Yuck, but reality).

2) If one person refuses to a consensus, either the rest of the consensus moves on without them (in which we are back to a dictatorship  by democracy), or consensus never occurs and a decision is not made. This can work for a while, but evolution does not stop.

Ultimately, the beauty of Bitcoin is the open source nature and the ability for anyone to use it how they please. What I have realized is that the ability to freely pick and choose your money is more important than ever. Any impediment to currency exchange and transmission, no matter what form it takes, is an assault on human rights and dignity.

You are ignoring one aspect which is vital to consensus: reputation. The major difference between democracy and consensus is that not all votes are equal. Some vetos weight more than others.

An outlier willing to use his veto to stop progress needs to consider the strenght of his reputation and the validity of his arguments. If both are poor you are correct that consensus might move against him and that is perfectly normal. If that person is being intellectually honest she might realize the need to compromise on what might not have been the best idea in the first place or effectively exile himself from the decision process.

Now of course reputations are built and destroyed all the time. In that sense consensus has a very meritocratic aspect to it.

[brg444]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

[adamstgBit]

i think the point would not be to necessary achieve 100% consensus but to strive for it. with a simple majority wins system you don't get both side to try comparmize or try to think of alt solutions which satisfy everyone. so it might not be possible to really achieve consensus but its important to TRY to reach a consensus.

[adamstgBit]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

says satoshi

it really has to be a fork of bitcoin with the majority of hashing power, but you get the idea.

[brg444]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

says satoshi

it really has to be a fork of bitcoin with the majority of hashing power

 

No.

Bitcoin is defined by the consensus rules defined in the software the nodes run. Not what some miners decides to mine...

[adamstgBit]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

says satoshi

it really has to be a fork of bitcoin with the majority of hashing power

 

No.

Bitcoin is defined by the consensus rules defined in the software the nodes run. Not what some miners decides to mine...

what no

i'm telling you what the  "consensus rules" are,
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.
this is from the white paper. and it wouldn't make any sense any other way.

[brg444]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

says satoshi

it really has to be a fork of bitcoin with the majority of hashing power

 

No.

Bitcoin is defined by the consensus rules defined in the software the nodes run. Not what some miners decides to mine...

what no

i'm telling you what the  "consensus rules" are,
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.
this is from the white paper. and it wouldn't make any sense any other way.

That is a common misconception of what actually happens. Here:

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

...

Litecoin forked from Bitcoin. Its chain grows 4 times faster than Bitcoin's. There's a 0% chance that Bitcoin can catch up with the length of Litecoin's chain. Nobody cares. Core ignores the Litecoin chain in the same way that it will ignore the XTcoin chain once XT's chain becomes incompatible with Bitcoin's.

Your welcome.

[adamstgBit]

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

Bitcoin is a Democracy by definition. or maybe more of a "Democracy with exile"

what is bitcoin?
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

there you go the bitcoin = whatever the majority of hashing power believes is bitcoin.

 

What a twisted idea.

So if "the majority of hashing power", say, 55%, starts mining Kanyecoin rather than Bitcoin than it becomes Bitcoin?

says satoshi

it really has to be a fork of bitcoin with the majority of hashing power

 

No.

Bitcoin is defined by the consensus rules defined in the software the nodes run. Not what some miners decides to mine...

what no

i'm telling you what the  "consensus rules" are,
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.
this is from the white paper. and it wouldn't make any sense any other way.

That is a common misconception of what actually happens. Here:

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

...

Litecoin forked from Bitcoin. Its chain grows 4 times faster than Bitcoin's. There's a 0% chance that Bitcoin can catch up with the length of Litecoin's chain. Nobody cares. Core ignores the Litecoin chain in the same way that it will ignore the XTcoin chain once XT's chain becomes incompatible with Bitcoin's.

Your welcome.

so you agree with me.

 the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.

  oh ya

Litecoin forked from Bitcoin. Its chain grows 4 times faster than Bitcoin's. There's a 0% chance that Bitcoin can catch up with the length of Litecoin's chain. Nobody cares. Core ignores the Litecoin chain in the same way that it will ignore the XTcoin chain once XT's chain becomes incompatible with Bitcoin's.

litecoin didn't fork from bitcoin
litecoin's CODE was a bitcoin fork
Big difference.
bitcoin XT attempted to fork from bitcoin.
to call it a fork it needs to include the blockchain up until the fork

[n2004al]

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.

First of all congratulations for your initiative. But today i have read an open letter from the developers. So they had anticipated you. You can again write your letter and this will be a sign that the devs are going in the right direction. And secondly congratulations again for the position you take. It is true and I agree with you. Bitcoin need consensus to go ahead. the devs must discuss with each other and arrive one consensus. Democracy maybe can became after.

[DannyHamilton]

i'm telling you what the  "consensus rules" are,
Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin.
this is from the white paper. and it wouldn't make any sense any other way.

Bitcoin has evolved since the whitepaper was written.  It gives a good introduction to the overall concepts, but the whitepaper gets many of the details wrong.

I think in this case, you are mistaken.  At the moment, the majority of the economic power is in agreement with the hashpower.  Perhaps this will always be true, but it doesn't have to be.

Imagine for a moment a case where 53% of the hash power chooses a particular set of consensus rules, and 47% chooses a different set of consensus rules.  Imagine that these consensus rules are such that neither side sees any of the other side's blocks as valid.  Now imagine that 98% of the users (merchants, consumers, charities, etc) all choose to use the same consensus rules as the 47% of the miners.  Which is the "real bitcoin?  I think that most people would say that the 47% fork is the "Real" bitcoin since that is what nearly everyone is using as bitcoin.  The fact that 53% of the miners have chosen to contribute their hashpower to some other chain doesn't really matter.

Now, there are some market forces in play that make this scenario VERY unlikely.  Since most people are using the 47% fork, it will be difficult for the miners on the 53% fork to find anyone that wants to buy the coins they are mining.  This will significantly reduce their ability to sell their coins and pay for their operating costs.  Therefore, there will be significant financial pressure on them to switch back to mining on the other fork.

This is what is meant when people talk about the "majority of the economic power". There is enough financial pressure on miners that they will tend to follow the desires of the economic power.  Therefore, in reality it is the economic power that decides which is the "real" bitcoin, and not the miners.