A Solution To Bitcoin's Governance Problem

[BitProdigy]

What do you think of giving the Bitcoin Community at large a voice instead of relying solely on the miners?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-solution-to-bitcoins-governance-problem/

Sounds like crypto vote will start allowing voting for the block size increase in the next few months. You gonna vote?

[worhiper_-_]

Bitcoin survived until today with changes happening under near global consensus. This means that every change happening till today had the benefit of everyone in mind and/or wasn't significant enough to affect non advanced users so they didn't participate in a debate against or for it. With the block size it's different and it's hard to reach global consensus as what would benefit some could put others in a disadvantageous position.

[BitProdigy]

Bitcoin survived until today with changes happening under near global consensus. This means that every change happening till today had the benefit of everyone in mind and/or wasn't significant enough to affect non advanced users so they didn't participate in a debate against or for it. With the block size it's different and it's hard to reach global consensus as what would benefit some could put others in a disadvantageous position.

Also there are much more people involved in bitcoin and therefore invested in the outcome of the decision now during this fork than there was during any other fork that occurred in Bitcoins history. I think it is important to introduce another layer of the consensus process that involves the owners of bitcoin rather then just leaving it 100% up to the developers and the miners.

[foreveryoung]

is that solution can applied on my country goverment?

[odolvlobo]

What do you think of giving the Bitcoin Community at large a voice instead of relying solely on the miners?

In the end, it doesn't matter how the vote goes because nobody is bound by the results of the vote.

[neoneros]

is that solution can applied on my country goverment?

All in due time, let us first sit out the economic revolution, which in turn will make governments and banks relatively powerless. And then the new revolution can start, based on what we learned from decentralising the economy, we can put it at work on how the world is governed, without a centralised institution that as we know is highly corruptable by those who controled the economy.

[shorena]

What do you think of giving the Bitcoin Community at large a voice instead of relying solely on the miners?

In the end, it doesn't matter how the vote goes because nobody is bound by the results of the vote.

Same way as nobody is bound to install a certain implementation. Asking only miners makes no sense as bitcoin is more than mining. They are important, yes, but they alone are not bitcoin. Anyone that holds coins should have a vote and since we can sign messages we can make it happen. Miners can vote on created blocks, holders on the amount they hold and businesses and exchanged by the amount they hold for their customers or themselves.

[worhiper_-_]

Bitcoin survived until today with changes happening under near global consensus. This means that every change happening till today had the benefit of everyone in mind and/or wasn't significant enough to affect non advanced users so they didn't participate in a debate against or for it. With the block size it's different and it's hard to reach global consensus as what would benefit some could put others in a disadvantageous position.

Also there are much more people involved in bitcoin and therefore invested in the outcome of the decision now during this fork than there was during any other fork that occurred in Bitcoins history. I think it is important to introduce another layer of the consensus process that involves the owners of bitcoin rather then just leaving it 100% up to the developers and the miners.

That is an interesting point. Giving everyone with invested interest n bitcoin a chance to have their voices heard sounds great, but to some extent was already possible. Like most open source projects managed through an open platform, anyohne could sign up to github or perhaps the mailing list. Unless their posting there was outright trolling valid comments are often properly addressed.

[Kprawn]

It's never a good idea to have a single governing organization or foundation for a decentralized network. The reason for that imo is to prevent a single point of failure.
~  Human failure - {Corruption & Manipulation}
~  Non Human failure - { Single server or mainframe can be targeted for hacking or terrorist attack.

There should still be procedures in place to submit BIP's {changes} and also suggestions to a group of engineers respresented from all countries to determine if it's viable or not. The final decision will be based on the same

structure that is in place now. 

[BitProdigy]

It's never a good idea to have a single governing organization or foundation for a decentralized network. The reason for that imo is to prevent a single point of failure.
~  Human failure - {Corruption & Manipulation}
~  Non Human failure - { Single server or mainframe can be targeted for hacking or terrorist attack.

There should still be procedures in place to submit BIP's {changes} and also suggestions to a group of engineers respresented from all countries to determine if it's viable or not. The final decision will be based on the same

structure that is in place now. 

Based on the recent workshop, the developers like the SHA3 competition model which was a centralized decision made by a "committee" I don't like that idea. I like the idea of miners and bitcoin owners voting for consensus much better.

[adamstgBit]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

clearly the devs are starting to reach an agreement, now i wonder if they will allow poeple to vote on whatever they decide...

[BitProdigy]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

clearly the devs are starting to reach an agreement, now i wonder if they will allow poeple to vote on whatever they decide...

I'm worried they are going with SHA3's committee model which is centralized, I prefer consensus arrived at through miner and coin holder voting:

CryptoVoter’s voting client and code launched on September 14th and will go through approximately a one month test period holding development votes on a smaller cryptocurrency’s block chain before hosting the first Bitcoin block size-related vote on October 23.

[BtcMagazin]

In the end, it doesn't matter how the vote goes because nobody is bound by the results of the vote.

But the voters are users. If the right decisions are made, the voters are the onw who will get the benefit.

[worhiper_-_]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

clearly the devs are starting to reach an agreement, now i wonder if they will allow poeple to vote on whatever they decide...

Several people have been saying that a small increase on the block size limit is the least radical solution, that would potentially give the community a lot more time to develop new solutions and form consensus around in case a hard fork would be required. Pieter Wuille's BIP addressed some of those points.

[Undermood]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

clearly the devs are starting to reach an agreement, now i wonder if they will allow poeple to vote on whatever they decide...

Several people have been saying that a small increase on the block size limit is the least radical solution, that would potentially give the community a lot more time to develop new solutions and form consensus around in case a hard fork would be required. Pieter Wuille's BIP addressed some of those points.

Yes, it could be one of the options listed there for votes. We could give more time period for votes reaching to as many users as possible. Users can provide their own options for votes.

[BitProdigy]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

clearly the devs are starting to reach an agreement, now i wonder if they will allow poeple to vote on whatever they decide...

Several people have been saying that a small increase on the block size limit is the least radical solution, that would potentially give the community a lot more time to develop new solutions and form consensus around in case a hard fork would be required. Pieter Wuille's BIP addressed some of those points.

Yes, it could be one of the options listed there for votes. We could give more time period for votes reaching to as many users as possible. Users can provide their own options for votes.

Yes, a small increase is just one of many possible solutions, all of which should be voted upon. There should not a centralized decision handed down from above (from the developers) we should all have as say in how this is handled. I will be voting with my coins in october.

[odolvlobo]

What do you think of giving the Bitcoin Community at large a voice instead of relying solely on the miners?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-solution-to-bitcoins-governance-problem/

Sounds like crypto vote will start allowing voting for the block size increase in the next few months. You gonna vote?

The weight of your vote depends on the number of bitcoins you control. The minority of people that control most of the bitcoins will dominate. The wallets that have the most bitcoins belong to big miners, exchanges, Coinbase, and a few others. If you have less than a bitcoin in your wallet, your vote isn't worth much.

[maokoto]

I will not vote. I will be happy with what majority decides.

[BitProdigy]

What do you think of giving the Bitcoin Community at large a voice instead of relying solely on the miners?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-solution-to-bitcoins-governance-problem/

Sounds like crypto vote will start allowing voting for the block size increase in the next few months. You gonna vote?

The weight of your vote depends on the number of bitcoins you control. The minority of people that control most of the bitcoins will dominate. The wallets that have the most bitcoins belong to big miners, exchanges, Coinbase, and a few others. If you have less than a bitcoin in your wallet, your vote isn't worth much.

Regardless, it is better to have the votes of the developers + the miners + the bitcoin owners vs just the developers and miners, don't you think? It is not the case that the bitcoin owners will decide the vote, only it will influence it and demonstrate consensus of those who are most invested in the outcome of the decision; those who hold the bitcoin.