You should not leave behind that people in China have a slightly diverse mentality than in the US or in Europe..They do not vote, they do not have such concept as democracy, or democratic choice, which is immanent to many European countries. They have come to rely on the leader, it is a communist state with a different background and mentality. While leaders are able to give to the people what they need, such leaders are satisfied with the Chinese people. In this situation, for Bitcoin commune, such leader - Bitcoin Core command ... As long as coders decide assigned targets and make it possible to earn money, they are all satisfied with China. Mining pools in China, in the most cases, are owned by people that far from technologies and the niceties of cryptography.
So, currently, the failure of democracy will only get gains in the voting process..These consequences have been made after writing hundreds of articles about China and about the principles of their work..
Topic: [2016-11-30]Mining pools positions upon Segregated Witness (Read 559 times)
Yeah, the constant whining of lolly purchasers is really painful to endure. For these people, who apparently don't want SegWit and LightningNetworks we already have DogeCoin.
ya.ya.yo!
But the problem is that most stores do not accept dogecoin, most especially candy stores
No, you were clear! But clarity is literally the issue (as one could argue we're demonstrating).
Well, thank god that buying votes is the only legitimate way to do it in this particular election. It's unlike any vote we're accustomed to, which is why referring to this as a vote carries potential problems (despite all the similarities), I guess that's what I'm getting at.
If we want the hard-fork equivalent of a Bitcoin politician to gain popularity, doing anything that encourages users to think "but where's my vote on this important issue that affects me?", then by all means, popularise the notion that soft-fork acceptance signalling is a vote. I prefer to call it "block version signalling", as that's (to my mind) an accurate description of what's really happening.
And so obviously, because regular users don't create their own blocks, giving them any kind of impression that this event is a vote can be easily misconstrued as them being left out of the decision making process (users can only choose to-Bitcoin or not-to-Bitcoin, in this system).
If we want the hard-fork equivalent of a Bitcoin politician to gain popularity, doing anything that encourages users to think "but where's my vote on this important issue that affects me?", then by all means, popularise the notion that soft-fork acceptance signalling is a vote. I prefer to call it "block version signalling", as that's (to my mind) an accurate description of what's really happening.
And so obviously, because regular users don't create their own blocks, giving them any kind of impression that this event is a vote can be easily misconstrued as them being left out of the decision making process (users can only choose to-Bitcoin or not-to-Bitcoin, in this system).
Ah. I wasn't clear...
I wasn't suggesting it was a vote involving users.
It's a vote amongst hashers, like the shareholder type of vote.
I'd be the last person to suggest a democratic vote by users on a technical issue like this.
Well, thank god that buying votes is the only legitimate way to do it in this particular election. It's unlike any vote we're accustomed to, which is why referring to this as a vote carries potential problems (despite all the similarities), I guess that's what I'm getting at.
If we want the hard-fork equivalent of a Bitcoin politician to gain popularity, doing anything that encourages users to think "but where's my vote on this important issue that affects me?", then by all means, popularise the notion that soft-fork acceptance signalling is a vote. I prefer to call it "block version signalling", as that's (to my mind) an accurate description of what's really happening.
And so obviously, because regular users don't create their own blocks, giving them any kind of impression that this event is a vote can be easily misconstrued as them being left out of the decision making process (users can only choose to-Bitcoin or not-to-Bitcoin, in this system).
If we want the hard-fork equivalent of a Bitcoin politician to gain popularity, doing anything that encourages users to think "but where's my vote on this important issue that affects me?", then by all means, popularise the notion that soft-fork acceptance signalling is a vote. I prefer to call it "block version signalling", as that's (to my mind) an accurate description of what's really happening.
And so obviously, because regular users don't create their own blocks, giving them any kind of impression that this event is a vote can be easily misconstrued as them being left out of the decision making process (users can only choose to-Bitcoin or not-to-Bitcoin, in this system).
If it's a vote, then how is it that participants can buy as many votes as they like? 
It may resemble a vote in some ways, but that does not make it a vote. I'll happily accept an analogy that actually makes sense.
It may resemble a vote in some ways, but that does not make it a vote. I'll happily accept an analogy that actually makes sense.I think I saw nullc (?) saying these are not votes, but I haven't read further to see what he was getting at. Won't go there...
Apropos your comment though, 'vote' doesn't need to be unbuyable (shareholders, as mentioned elsewhere).
I'm pretty sure you are referring to a democratic vote. And I'd argue that even in preactical democracies, votes are bought (campaigns, lobbying, politician bribes, etc).
I see little qualitative difference between the segwit signals and a practical democratic vote by pools and miners.
I guess the difference, if there is one, has to be in the price of a vote
Its closer to a shareholder meeting to vote on a proposal, only those that have "skin in the game" can participate. It is certainly not a wide-open democratic process that requires zero investment.
That's a good analogy. If you ask me, it makes a lot of sense that not everyone can vote, but only those who contribute to the security and functioning of the Bitcoin network. And it's also good that voting power is a direct function of the extent of contribution.
Under the premise of a classical democracy, everybody who holds just a single Satoshi on a third party site would have the same voting power as someone running a full node and miner. That would be disastrous, as the former category of users tends to be much less involved and knowledgeable in regard to the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.
I just want some of the stupid drama to be over about blocksize and being able to buy 5-cent candies at the sweet shop to finally be fucking over... all of it has been extremely annoying.
Yeah, the constant whining of lolly purchasers is really painful to endure. For these people, who apparently don't want SegWit and LightningNetworks we already have DogeCoin.
ya.ya.yo!
Its closer to a shareholder meeting to vote on a proposal, only those that have "skin in the game" can participate. It is certainly not a wide-open democratic process that requires zero investment.
Been following it, there's a site that keeps track of whether it is activated or not here -- http://segwit.co/
I just want some of the stupid drama to be over about blocksize and being able to buy 5-cent candies at the sweet shop to finally be fucking over... all of it has been extremely annoying.
Been following it, there's a site that keeps track of whether it is activated or not here -- http://segwit.co/
I just want some of the stupid drama to be over about blocksize and being able to buy 5-cent candies at the sweet shop to finally be fucking over... all of it has been extremely annoying.
If it's a vote, then how is it that participants can buy as many votes as they like? It may resemble a vote in some ways, but that does not make it a vote. I'll happily accept an analogy that actually makes sense.
It may resemble a vote in some ways, but that does not make it a vote. I'll happily accept an analogy that actually makes sense. The confrontation upon Bitcoin scaling has passed from the phase of debate to the voting phase. From 18 November Bitcoin miners began to poll on the activation of Segregated Witness. Without exaggeration, this vote could be called the most substantial in the story of Bitcoin - this is a test of the faculty of the commune to make decentralized solutions. From the course and outcomes of this process depends on the future of Bitcoin...https://bit.news/eng/mining-pools-positions-upon-segregated-witness/
Jump to: