An Open Letter to the Developers from the Bitcoin Community

[BitProdigy]

You can sign the letter with your support here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bitcoin-community-endorses-decentralized-consensus-decision.html

Bitcoin Community Endorses Decentralized Consensus Decision

With regards to the current debate about a potential BlockSize increase, it is becoming increasingly clear that our community stands at a crossroads. Generations to come will surely look back at this time in history as a guidepost for how to handle similar situations. We would be wise to consider not only our own interests as we approach a solution to our current quandary, but also the interests of those to come.

In producing this manifesto we propose not an endorsement for any single solution to the BlockSize problem, but an endorsement of a process by which a decision on the best solution may be arrived at. We are using this Open Letter to declare our support for a Decentralized Consensus Decision Making Process, which includes the input of all who are invested in the success of Bitcoin.

We propose a system in which decisions are made by involving all participants. Devs submit BIPs; miners, investors, and large bitcoin entities express support for their favored BIP. The expressed support allows devs to see where each group stands, and the discussions allow them to tailor the proposal to satisfy all participants. This ensures bitcoin evolves in a way which reflects the unified will of all its participants, avoiding the disastrous consequences of implementing solutions that have significant support but not broad consensus among the community.

While we are uncertain of what percentage of support should signify consensus, whether it be 75% within a 1000 block sequence or 95% within a 5000 block sequence or some combination of steps or thresholds; and further, while we are also uncertain of the mechanism by which all voices may be heard, whether it be coin-voting or some other mechanism, what we are certain of is this one thing: we do not trust you, we trust consensus agreement.

In our proposal, the “winner” would therefore be the developer(s) who figure out the proposal that achieves consensus first, encouraging developers to revise and amend their proposals according to the will of consensus. We feel that such a process is the only way to arrive at the best possible solution to any problem and avoid the disastrous consequences of implementing a solution that does not have consensus among the community.

We pledge our support for any solution that is arrived at using Decentralized Consensus Decision Making, and we encourage others to join us.

Together, we are:

[Kakmakr]

The more complex the Decentralized Consensus Decision Making Process is, the longer it will take to implement and accept a Bip. We cannot even reach a consensus with the small amount of role-players we have now. I agree that we need a more open and transparent process though.

Most people do not understand the process and where it all originated with Satoshi and Gavin being the benevolent dictators for a while.

[kalooki]

I think before people start using the word "consensus" they should actually read the one use of that word in the whitepaper.

Consensus is not a thing you achieve before a change, it is a thing that happens after a change.

The BitcoinXT thing is a perfect example of consensus as envisioned in the whitepaper. Someone builds a new version of Bitcoin and puts it out there. The users and miners of Bitcoin vote with their feet (ie: processing power) and reject it, and we move on.

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

The pussyfooting around we've had for the last 4 years with these network-breaking softforks is not what should be happening - i.e". make a change but hack it so we don't hardfork". There should be regular hardforks and the users (merchants, miners, PSPs) of Bitcoin should be set up to work around them. The lack of them makes the network weaker, not stronger.

Now we have experienced Bitcoiners literally and figuratively (and proudly!) sitting on their hands until the core devs utter their next commandment. And woe betide anyone else who drops a new version of core in the meantime.

I am convinced that the consensus concept is broken and misunderstood by the community. I think people are afraid of forks because they fear it will damage the public perception and price. I think that the lack of progress in the technology is damaging adoption WAY more.

Just my 0.02c




 

[adamstgBit]

The more complex the Decentralized Consensus Decision Making Process is, the longer it will take to implement and accept a Bip. We cannot even reach a consensus with the small amount of role-players we have now. I agree that we need a more open and transparent process though.

Most people do not understand the process and where it all originated with Satoshi and Gavin being the benevolent dictators for a while.

its relatively simple

miners, investors, and large bitcoin entities  all vote & discuss  (like they are doing now for blocksize) so that devs look at these vote & discussions and make a good decision, one which satisfies mostly everyone. hopefully, this process makes devs not so focused on getting their idea implemented, but rather editing, adding to there BIP, trying to get more votes.

I think before people start using the word "consensus" they should actually read the one use of that word in the whitepaper.

Consensus is not a thing you achieve before a change, it is a thing that happens after a change.

The BitcoinXT thing is a perfect example of consensus as envisioned in the whitepaper. Someone builds a new version of Bitcoin and puts it out there. The users and miners of Bitcoin vote with their feet (ie: processing power) and reject it, and we move on.

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

The pussyfooting around we've had for the last 4 years with these network-breaking softforks is not what should be happening - i.e". make a change but hack it so we don't hardfork". There should be regular hardforks and the users (merchants, miners, PSPs) of Bitcoin should be set up to work around them. The lack of them makes the network weaker, not stronger.

Now we have experienced Bitcoiners literally and figuratively (and proudly!) sitting on their hands until the core devs utter their next commandment. And woe betide anyone else who drops a new version of core in the meantime.

I am convinced that the consensus concept is broken and misunderstood by the community. I think people are afraid of forks because they fear it will damage the public perception and price. I think that the lack of progress in the technology is damaging adoption WAY more.

Just my 0.02c

people are afraid of forks, and rightfully so, had bitcoinXt gained a significant % of nodes there may be an full on "war" going on

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.

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

just the act of forking bitcoin because a dev thinks he knows better turns everyone off to his idea. no one will use it simply because they don't want to support forking bitcoin.

its better to have everyone vote first, then at one point devs "Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it." obviously they won't choose to implement a BIP with low approval during voting...  and they don't necessarily have to wait for the whole network to be 90% voting on one idea. voting is a tool for devs to see how easily a change will be accepted before  "Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it."

[Kprawn]

How do you stop human greed and human pride from interfering with the whole process? The whole Core vs XT thing started out with Gavin & Mike not being satisfied with the

speed at which Wladimir is deciding on the block size issue. It turned out, he stalled this process for a reason. {His own interest in side-chains etc.} and Mike and Gavin was

forcing the issue, to benefit The lightning network. {Greed & Pride} ...Once these human traits enters the process.. no system will succeed. {Either through individuals or

groups}  

[adamstgBit]

How do you stop human greed and human pride from interfering with the whole process? The whole Core vs XT thing started out with Gavin & Mike not being satisfied with the

speed at which Wladimir is deciding on the block size issue. It turned out, he stalled this process for a reason. {His own interest in side-chains etc.} and Mike and Gavin was

forcing the issue, to benefit The lightning network. {Greed & Pride} ...Once these human traits enters the process.. no system will succeed. {Either through individuals or

groups}  

this idea is that getting the whole community involved in the process  ( voting ) will speed up the process.

Gavin would probably of not wasted his time on XT had he only seen 1% of miners and investors willing to back it.

stalling would be equally hard if 90% of the network is voting for one change or another.

i mean at one point when we see some huge % of the poeple voting for a BIP, anyone can go ahead and safely fork bitcoin, with or without the dev team.

i think there needs to be better way for miners and investors to vote, right now miners are voting for there favorite BIP

they should actually be allowed to express their willingness to accept each BIP and vote for their favorite one

the coinbase data on each block would look something like this: "BIP100-YES, BIP101-YES, BIP106-NO, VOTE:BIP100"

that way we get more info, more pie charts, more fun.

[TransaDox]

this idea is that getting the whole community involved in the process  ( voting ) will speed up the process.

Gavin would probably of not wasted his time on XT had he only seen 1% of miners and investors willing to back it.

stalling would be equally hard if 90% of the network is voting for one change or another.

i mean at one point when we see some huge % of the poeple voting for a BIP, anyone can go ahead and safely fork bitcoin, with or without the dev team.

i think there needs to be better way for miners and investors to vote, right now miners are voting for there favorite BIP

they should actually be allowed to express their willingness to accept each BIP and vote for their favorite one

the coinbase data on each block would look something like this: "BIP100-YES, BIP101-YES, BIP106-NO, VOTE:BIP100"

that way we get more info, more pie charts, more fun.

Nice words.

It's not the whole community though, is it! It is consensus between vested interests and monied organisations. Every week Bitcoin looks more and more like a status-quo banking system no matter how much the word consensus tries to make me believe what I think counts. So its agreement between those that own the means of production and those that lend them the money to buy means of production. Large bitcoin entities?  They don't get much larger than the miners. What about all the bitcoin entities?

[adamstgBit]

this idea is that getting the whole community involved in the process  ( voting ) will speed up the process.

Gavin would probably of not wasted his time on XT had he only seen 1% of miners and investors willing to back it.

stalling would be equally hard if 90% of the network is voting for one change or another.

i mean at one point when we see some huge % of the poeple voting for a BIP, anyone can go ahead and safely fork bitcoin, with or without the dev team.

i think there needs to be better way for miners and investors to vote, right now miners are voting for there favorite BIP

they should actually be allowed to express their willingness to accept each BIP and vote for their favorite one

the coinbase data on each block would look something like this: "BIP100-YES, BIP101-YES, BIP106-NO, VOTE:BIP100"

that way we get more info, more pie charts, more fun.

Nice words.

It's not the whole community though, is it! It is consensus between vested interests and monied organisations. Every week Bitcoin looks more and more like a status-quo banking system no matter how much the word consensus tries to make me believe what I think counts. So its agreement between those that own the means of production and those that lend them the money to buy means of production. Large bitcoin entities?  They don't get much larger than the miners. What about all the bitcoin entities?

well everyone that is investment in BTC would get a say, and obviously we want to weight these votes with how much they are invested...
I see nothing wrong with that.

up until now ALL dev decision was done by 1 man with a vasion (pretty much)

allowing everyone with a BTC to join in the voting is a radical shift in the right direction...

not sure what you're upset about...

[marky89]

well everyone that is investment in BTC would get a say, and obviously we want to weight these votes with how much they are invested...
I see nothing wrong with that.

up until now ALL dev decision was done by 1 man with a vasion (pretty much)

allowing everyone with a BTC to join in the voting is a radical shift in the right direction...

not sure what you're upset about...

I don't really view bitcoin as a democracy, and I think this sort of process would only make consensus much more difficult to achieve. I'm fine with everyone voicing their opinion in any way possible, but that should in no way impinge on the the development process (which need not be decentralized -- the dev process is kept in check by consensus) or the consensus process.

Consensus means that the supermajority (and I take that to mean 90-95%) supports a proposal; as it stands, the supermajority supports the status quo. I think we need to set aside political/democratic ideals and recognize that without an emphasis on consensus, we run the risk of breaking blockchain consensus (i.e. multiple chains) along these political ideals.

If 90-95% (really 95%) do not support a protocol change, the status quo ought to prevail. We ought to defer to the protocol that has consensus. And I think we really need to push back against this idea that we can simply lower accepted consensus thresholds in favor of "forcing" a substantial minority into the economic majority.

[adamstgBit]

I don't really view bitcoin as a democracy, and I think this sort of process would only make consensus much more difficult to achieve. I'm fine with everyone voicing their opinion in any way possible, but that should in no way impinge on the the development process (which need not be decentralized -- the dev process is kept in check by consensus) or the consensus process.

the development process will always be up to the devs, they get the final say, in anycase any dev can fork bitcoin with or without any sort of "consensus"  "consensus" comes after the when  hashing power, investors, and large bitcoin entities like BitPay upgrade. all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

i think we'll get better information for voting like this:

the coinbase data on each block would look something like this: "BIP100-YES, BIP101-YES, BIP106-NO, VOTE:BIP100"

there we can say something like BIP100 has a 90% approval rating and is getting 60% of the "favorite BIP" vote.

but all this voting would do is give devs info on what the community as a whole wants.

this info, might make it easier for the devs to reach consensus.

[TransaDox]

well everyone that is investment in BTC would get a say, and obviously we want to weight these votes with how much they are invested...
I see nothing wrong with that.

up until now ALL dev decision was done by 1 man with a vasion (pretty much)

allowing everyone with a BTC to join in the voting is a radical shift in the right direction...

not sure what you're upset about...

Here we go again!
It's not everyone with BTC. It is a small number of infrastructure rich entities whos main interest is to consolidate that position and keep it that way. The one person that you speak of only controlled the code, not the network - that's a straw man argument and what I am upset about is this insistence that asking a few people that have wads of cash what we should do with bitcoin is consensus. It is not!

[adamstgBit]

well everyone that is investment in BTC would get a say, and obviously we want to weight these votes with how much they are invested...
I see nothing wrong with that.

up until now ALL dev decision was done by 1 man with a vasion (pretty much)

allowing everyone with a BTC to join in the voting is a radical shift in the right direction...

not sure what you're upset about...

Here we go again!
It's not everyone with BTC. It is a small number of infrastructure rich entities whos main interest is to consolidate that position and keep it that way. The one person that you speak of only controlled the code, not the network - that's a straw man argument and what I am upset about is this insistence that asking a few people that have wads of cash what we should do with bitcoin is consensus. It is not!

you have 0.1BTC you can vote, how is that NOT everyone gets a say? are you proposing someone with 0.1BTC should have just as much say as someone with 1000's of BTC? Bitcoin is not a utopia.

is asking a single dev what we should do, and not considering anyone else a better form of consensus?

quit your trolling and agree that being able to see the 3 pie charts showing miner votes, investor votes, large bitcoin entities votes, would be of some value when devs are making decisions.

[marky89]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

[Mickeyb]

well everyone that is investment in BTC would get a say, and obviously we want to weight these votes with how much they are invested...
I see nothing wrong with that.

up until now ALL dev decision was done by 1 man with a vasion (pretty much)

allowing everyone with a BTC to join in the voting is a radical shift in the right direction...

not sure what you're upset about...

Here we go again!
It's not everyone with BTC. It is a small number of infrastructure rich entities whos main interest is to consolidate that position and keep it that way. The one person that you speak of only controlled the code, not the network - that's a straw man argument and what I am upset about is this insistence that asking a few people that have wads of cash what we should do with bitcoin is consensus. It is not!

you have 0.1BTC you can vote, how is that NOT everyone gets a say? are you proposing someone with 0.1BTC should have just as much say as someone with 1000's of BTC? Bitcoin is not a utopia.

is asking a single dev what we should do, and not considering anyone else a better form of consensus?

quit your trolling and agree that being able to see the 3 pie charts showing miner votes, investor votes, large bitcoin entities votes, would be of some value when devs are making decisions.

Yes, it would help them and it would influence their decisions and that's all we can hope for. I know that some are saying that Bitcoin has became a game of the powerful who are guarding their interest (miners, payment processors, whales, devs), but so is democracy and we still go to the elections every 4 years and we vote and express our opinion by hoping that we can influence the change.

The easisest is to sit around this forum and b***h about this and b***h about that and not even try to change something. That being said, I am off to sign a petition!

[adamstgBit]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are the only poeple that are relevant.

if not them then WHO is relevant  ???Obama???

[knight22]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

Because the community is much larger than it was with more diametrical views.

May I ask you why 95%? Why not 100%? What percentage is considered safe enough? What percentage is considered low enough to avoid any changes being blocked by an harmful minority?

 

[marky89]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are the only poeple that is relevant.

if not them then WHO is relevant  

I said hashing power is relevant. This is a proof-of-work system. The top priority of miners is to secure the network (incentives provided). Bitpay's agenda may or may not match this priority, and whether or not it does is irrelevant. In fact, the very suggestion that we should grant Bitpay some sort of authority absent any hash power to support it is problematic. They can push their objectives all they want -- see their support of BIP101 as an example. But the rest of the community is here to make clear that their interests (limitless scaling with no forethought to network security) do not align with ours.

[marky89]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

Because the community is much larger than it was with more diametrical views.

May I ask you why 95%? Why not 100%? What percentage is considered safe enough? What percentage is considered low enough to avoid any changes being blocked by an harmful minority?

So? A hard fork should not be easy to implement. Whether or not the community has diametrical views -- and I assure you, it did on the subject of block size limit 5 years ago -- is just not relevant. 95% has proven to work in the past and is well outside the realm of a simple majority + a lucky streak. 75% is considerably lower than past hard forks, and surely risks breaking consensus. Lower consensus thresholds may make it easier to implement hard forks, but it considerably increases the risk of permanently breaking consensus. This comes down to game theory -- it is not a simple fact that "best behavior" prevails always. I think that those who believe that a 70-30 or 60-40 split, for instance, can only result in the minority being forced into the majority and consensus will prevail, are making a very bold claim.

[adamstgBit]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are the only poeple that is relevant.

if not them then WHO is relevant  

I said hashing power is relevant. This is a proof-of-work system. The top priority of miners is to secure the network (incentives provided). Bitpay's agenda may or may not match this priority, and whether or not it does is irrelevant. In fact, the very suggestion that we should grant Bitpay some sort of authority absent any hash power to support it is problematic. They can push their objectives all they want -- see their support of BIP101 as an example. But the rest of the community is here to make clear that their interests (limitless scaling with no forethought to network security) do not align with ours.

no one is suggesting BitPay call the shots, we are suggesting BitPay opinion on any given change does carry some weight, just as someone opinion with 1/2 a BTC carries some weight.

[adamstgBit]

"consensus" comes after the when  hashing power

...

all this voting would do is allow everyone to express there willingness to upgrade to a potential change.

i think it's unreasonable to assume voting will ever show 90% of miners all voting for the the same BIP when all 3 BIPs are perfectly valid options

Agree re: hashing power; investors and large bitcoin entities like BitPay are irrelevant.

Why? BIP66 achieved 95% consensus before forking. I see no reason why this can't be achieved again. If not, it would appear the supermajority prefers the status quo to a controversial hard fork.

The very point is that not all BIPs are perfectly valid options.....

Because the community is much larger than it was with more diametrical views.

May I ask you why 95%? Why not 100%? What percentage is considered safe enough? What percentage is considered low enough to avoid any changes being blocked by an harmful minority?

So? A hard fork should not be easy to implement. Whether or not the community has diametrical views -- and I assure you, it did on the subject of block size limit 5 years ago -- is just not relevant. 95% has proven to work in the past and is well outside the realm of a simple majority + a lucky streak. 75% is considerably lower than past hard forks, and surely risks breaking consensus. Lower consensus thresholds may make it easier to implement hard forks, but it considerably increases the risk of permanently breaking consensus. This comes down to game theory -- it is not a simple fact that "best behavior" prevails always. I think that those who believe that a 70-30 or 60-40 split, for instance, can only result in the minority being forced into the majority and consensus will prevail, are making a very bold claim.

we'll get ready to test that theory buddy cuz something's gotta give on this block limit shit.