There Must Be A Way We Can All Vote

[uxgpf]

would gavin had created bitcoinXT had he known <1% of miners would support it, while >60% support BIP100. i don't think he would of wasted his time.

Gavin didn't create Bitcoin XT, he created BIP 101 and merged it to Bitcoin XT, which is Mike Hearns much earlier fork of Bitcoin Core. Miners show their support for BIP 100 for obivious reasons (it gives them more power), but we will see if it will be actually coded and if new fork will be created to implement it.

Also it's currently not possible to vote for BIP 101 as slush voting port got DDoS:ed and they disabled mining with it. In addition all Bitcoin XT nodes have been under constant UDP flood attacks and many have been forced to shut down. I'd say that statistics are meaningless with this level of censorship.

maybe he would of changed his mind and created a new BIP, but that's too late now, poor gavin cast away, forever?

I think that BIP 101 is a very reasonable proposition:
http://imgur.com/b5eOEaf

It makes Blocksize limit growth predictable and if in distant future it errs to the upside it's always easier to soft fork to smaller value, than hard fork to increase, which would be must with BIP 100 and its 32 MB final limit.

[habraken]

This is how we do voting on the blockchain. Can't be cheated.
It's not anonymous though, you can see what account voted what. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it isn't.
And it's probably no good for bitcoin holders

[adamstgBit]

would gavin had created bitcoinXT had he known <1% of miners would support it, while >60% support BIP100. i don't think he would of wasted his time.

Gavin didn't create Bitcoin XT, he created BIP 101 and merged it to Bitcoin XT, which is Mike Hearns much earlier fork of Bitcoin Core. Miners show their support for BIP 100 for obivious reasons (it gives them more power), but we will see if it will be actually coded and if new fork will be created to implement it.

Also it's currently not possible to vote for BIP 101 as slush voting port got DDoS:ed and they disabled mining with it. In addition all Bitcoin XT nodes have been under constant UDP flood attacks and many have been forced to shut down. I'd say that statistics are meaningless with this level of censorship.

maybe he would of changed his mind and created a new BIP, but that's too late now, poor gavin cast away, forever?

I think that BIP 101 is a very reasonable proposition:
http://imgur.com/b5eOEaf

It makes Blocksize limit growth predictable and if in distant future it errs to the upside it's always easier to soft fork to smaller value, than hard fork to increase, which would be must with BIP 100 and it's 32 MB final limit.

let's pretend the dev team had put all the block limit BIPs up for voting at the very beginning, and right away they saw BIP101 with <1% hashing power without any funny censorship happening... would gavin have continued to push BIP101 as hard as he did?

your individual opinion on BIP101 VS other BIP's is good to know, but knowing EVERYONE's opinion put together is more valuable info.

miners favor a BIP that give's them more power sure thats fine, thats why we need BTC votes to weigh in and paint a more accurate picture for the dev's to consider.

bottom line is its hard to argue devs wouldn't benefit from having this kind of information on hand.

also,  i'm starting to think everyone should be allowed to "vote" for more than one BIP, they aren't voting so much as expressing their willingness to embrace a change, so if a miner is willing to accept BIP100 OR BIP101 he should be able to express that. maybe the voting could be 2 parts, first part miners express whether or not they think each BIP is acceptable or not. second part they Vote for their favorite one. this would give us alot of valuable info. miners can easily put all this info in the CoinBase of the blocks they mine, "BIP100-OK BIP101-OK BIP123-NOTOK, BIP100-FAV", BTC voters can write out the same kind of msg and sign it. then we can chart all this data and get information out of it.

[uxgpf]

Yes, I'm sure it would make decisions easier if developers could clearly see the needs of the user base. I just don't know if we are well enough informed to vote or if we are able to vote for future users who are not here to represent themselves. As Gavin (or maybe it was a guy interviewing him?) rightly said, bitcoin is also for them.

Developers are individuals and everyone - even if they all want best for bitcoin - has somewhat different goals. I think that project like bitcoin could benefit from a clear direction. Linux kernel development has worked very well with a system, where improvements are discussed for some time, but Linus makes a final decision and then things can move forward. I haven't followed close enough if bitcoin development went as smoothly when Satoshi and later Gavin were maintainers, but I recall it used a similar model where the maintainer had a final word.

Someone on Reddit posted this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

Little too familiar, eh? I hope Core's developer consensus model doesn't follow the same path as the Sejm did.

In the end it's probably miners and the big businesses who will push for change and there's not much rest of us can do.

[Dire]

I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.

As I brought up the last time you started a thread asking this very same question not a month ago, the Counterparty protocol on the Bitcoin blockchain has a token voting system that can be used and is transparent on the blockchain.

Create a named Counterparty asset, distribute asset for a nominal Satoshi (proof of Bitcoin ownership/usage) then distribute voting tokens.

It's not rocket science.

[BitProdigy]

As I brought up the last time you started a thread asking this very same question not a month ago, the Counterparty protocol on the Bitcoin blockchain has a token voting system that can be used and is transparent on the blockchain.

Create a named Counterparty asset, distribute asset for a nominal Satoshi (proof of Bitcoin ownership/usage) then distribute voting tokens.

It's not rocket science.

Ok yes this is exactly the kind of thing needed. How does this solve the double voting problem? Can I have more voting tokens than you get?

[asperous]

Good thoughts in here.

Nxt voting -- Because votes count if holders have "minimum required balance of NXT", people with money will just make a bunch of accounts and spread out their money into buckets with the minimum. This just boils down to voting based on whomever has the most money.

Counterparty voting -- Even if distribution is perfect, people will just sell their coins or votes (since they aren't tied to them and the votes aren't secret) also from BIP-100 "what if they’re not online? lacks bias for active users? biased towards early adopters? miner self-dealing?". Again, this boils down to just voting based on whomever has the most money.

[habraken]

Nxt voting -- Because votes count if holders have "minimum required balance of NXT", people with money will just make a bunch of accounts and spread out their money into buckets with the minimum. This just boils down to voting based on whomever has the most money.

That's just one of several voting options, have a look at https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Voting_System

Vote By Account - This voting model assigns a weight of 1 to each vote cast.
Vote By Account Balance - This voting model assigns a weight equal to each voting account's balance of NXT
Vote By Asset Balance - This voting model assigns a weight equal to each voting account's balance of a specified asset
Vote By Currency Balance - This voting model assigns a weight equal to each voting account's balance of a specified (Monetary System) currency

So for instance you could distribute a specifically created asset (or MS currency) over a limited group of people (accounts), and only accounts that own that asset can vote. Like the 'voting tokens' that were mentioned in the Counterparty example, if I understand correctly.

You can try it in Jay's webwallet at http://www.jnxt.org/nxt/ use (empty) account NXT-XPXD-3353-4DS9-64GXF and explore the interface

If you vote by using a Monetary System currrency, not an asset, you can make it 'controllable': https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Monetary_System#Currency_Types
"Currencies may optionally only be traded with the issuing account (e.g. backed tokens such as gift vouchers)." http://nxt.org/about/monetary-system/

So that would eliminate people selling their votes.

[Nagle]

Only miners get to vote, because only miners approve transactions. The top 3 miners have a majority. What they say, goes. Deal with it.

[TransaDox]

Only miners get to vote, because only miners approve transactions. The top 3 miners have a majority. What they say, goes. Deal with it.

That one sentence sums up why we do need to deal with the miners now rather than later. They won't like it though.

[habraken]

The top 3 miners have a majority. What they say, goes. Deal with it.

And Nakamoto shed a tear...