Consensus = 75%? | Bitcointalksearch.org

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: iGotSpots on August 25, 2015, 03:55:58 PM

Well if you ask Gavin, consensus is having one 'dev' agree with you, then making your own fork. First they make the Foundation go broke, now they don't even bother using what it is there for Roll Eyes

I can't believe people are actually following this stupid two-man shit lol

Gavin did OK by the Bitcoin Foundation. He got paid a competitive salary and occasionally doodled around with talking-paperclip class 'enhancements' to Bitcoin which impressed the mouth-breather classes (e.g., those now most vocal in support of XT.) Most of the more technical grunt work (like injecting x.509 based idents which tried to make Bitcoin dependent on mainstream cert issuing authorities and opened Bitcoin up to the heartbleed bug) seemed to have been fed to him by 'others'.

theskillzdatklls

hero member

Activity: 1328

Merit: 563

MintDice.com | TG: t.me/MintDice

i always thought 75% sounded too low and that 80% sounded better. im also not a programmer.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

90% is feasible. I'm not sure why many think it is not. 75% is a bit low. It's not hard to get most pools and most important companies on board. If you have 90% of the main players agreeing, it is very likely that the rest will come on board as well (obviously, if they want to keep doing business).
AFAIK BIP100 needs 90% (it has already ~25%) from the miners.

iGotSpots

legendary

Activity: 2548

Merit: 1054

CPU Web Mining 🕸️ on webmining.io

Well if you ask Gavin, consensus is having one 'dev' agree with you, then making your own fork. First they make the Foundation go broke, now they don't even bother using what it is there for Roll Eyes

I can't believe people are actually following this stupid two-man shit lol

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: Lituation on August 25, 2015, 03:30:14 PM

There's not a consensus even in poll results. Cheesy

100%   - 3 (13.6%)
98%   - 2 (9.1%)
95%   - 3 (13.6%)
90%   - 3 (13.6%)
80%   - 3 (13.6%)
75%   - 8 (36.4%)
51%   - 0 (0%)

Everybody think different. The only conclusion we can reach here is it should be at least %75.

The problem with this poll is that it is not fluid. I think consensus requires the ability to change one's mind. I voted for 90% originally, but after discussing the reasons people like 75%, I have agreed with some of them, so now I would change my vote to probably 80% but I am not able to.

Consensus requires a fluid voting mechanism in which the votes are not set in stone but can be changed overtime, slowly evolving to a consensus. A poll like this cannot reach consensus.

Lituation

hero member

Activity: 698

Merit: 500

Free Speech is the most important thing.

There's not a consensus even in poll results. Cheesy

100%   - 3 (13.6%)
98%   - 2 (9.1%)
95%   - 3 (13.6%)
90%   - 3 (13.6%)
80%   - 3 (13.6%)
75%   - 8 (36.4%)
51%   - 0 (0%)

Everybody think different. The only conclusion we can reach here is it should be at least %75.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on August 25, 2015, 02:09:53 PM

I think Hearn chose 75% because he knew he would never get 90% approval from miners.

90% is not realistic...

You have to take into account that a lot of people will be too lazy to even get involved in this..

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Meuh6879 on August 25, 2015, 02:22:07 PM

75% : BIP compliant (full open bar like today)
91% : BIP enforced (filter applied ...)

no idea what i'm looking at

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

75% : BIP compliant (full open bar like today)
91% : BIP enforced (filter applied ...)

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Why say "consensus" and not "A majority of 75%" or "super majority"?
When you start to count % you get out of the consensus ...

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

I think Hearn chose 75% because he knew he would never get 90% approval from miners.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

More than 75% over a very large group of people with diametrical views is unrealistic and outright impossible IMO. It will only ensure that any progresses are blocked.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

I'd say 90%. It's a better guarantee that everyone is happy and on the same boat, or at least accepts the fork.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

What the miners *want* really does not matter. Enough money has been invested in both miners and mining pool infrastructure that the miners are forced to be profit seeking enterprises. The miners will mine on the chain they believe will generate the most profits for them over the long run.

If a specific miner routinely sells Bitcoin on coinbase (for example) and coinbase only accepts non BIP101 coins then the miner will not mine on a BIP101 blockchain because it would be of no value to them. Granted, in this situation a miner who wanted to mine on a BIP101 blockchain could opt to sell their mining revenue at another exchange, however if enough exchanges only accept a specific "type" of Bitcoin then all other potential "types" of Bitcoin will have very little value.

If there is economic consensus of a certain proposal then miners who do not accept that proposal will lose out on mining revenue. With mining being as competitive as it is, miners will not be able to afford to temporarily mine on a blockchain that has no value with the hopes that economic players will switch to their "type" of Bitcoin because of security concerns.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: Klestin on August 25, 2015, 01:23:00 PM

Consensus with all parties is not always possible. 75% is the highest possible number that doesn't allow a single pool to veto the change. It's not perfect, but it is reasonable.

It's also the same percentage used for initial rollout rules for the last big fork (BIP 34). Some were predicting doom and gloom with that one too. In reality it was so traumatic that we barely even remember it happened.

Good points, I'm okay with 75% if the rest of the community is as well. It just seems there is skepticism with 75%, people seem to indicate it is not enough to trust that it was the right decision. They threaten that if XT achieves 75% they will split bitcoin into two chains to avoid the decision. But maybe their reservations with XT are enough to prevent it from achieving 75% consensus anyway so their fears are unfounded. Perhaps 75% is enough to ensure that the best solution is achieved.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 25, 2015, 12:59:04 PM

In a consensus decision process we would ask why the large miner is blocking the proposal and attempt to address those concerns and perhaps amend the proposal so that all achieve consensus, this is why I think something higher than 75% could likely still be a viable level for consensus. All it does is ensure consensus among the entire community and avoid a split in the community. It also provides higher security for the new fork against attacks.

Consensus with all parties is not always possible. 75% is the highest possible number that doesn't allow a single pool to veto the change. It's not perfect, but it is reasonable.

It's also the same percentage used for initial rollout rules for the last big fork (BIP 34). Some were predicting doom and gloom with that one too. In reality it was so traumatic that we barely even remember it happened.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: Klestin on August 25, 2015, 12:47:07 PM

75% was chosen to prevent any single large miner from vetoing the change.

In a consensus decision process we would ask why the large miner is blocking the proposal and attempt to address those concerns and perhaps amend the proposal so that all achieve consensus, this is why I think something higher than 75% could likely still be a viable level for consensus. All it does is ensure consensus among the entire community and avoid a split in the community. It also provides higher security for the new fork against attacks.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

It depends on what your goal is.

A fork can reach consensus with 1% of the combined hash power. It just needs to be written in such a way as to ignore all blocks created on the opposing fork.

Of course, such a fork won't have very good security, as anyone with a mining farm will be able to attack it.

If the fork has 50% of the combined hash power, then both forks are equally secure and may co-exist for a period of time each with their own consensus.

By requiring something significantly higher than 50%, a fork can make sure that it's competitor can not attack it with hash power, and can avoid most situations where blocks may be orphaned by blocks from the other fork. Under this scenario, there is a likelihood that the economic power behind the fork overwhelms any resistance to acceptance. As such, the vast majority of users are likely to abandon the old consensus and join the new one.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: Klestin on August 25, 2015, 12:47:07 PM

75% was chosen to prevent any single large miner from vetoing the change.

This is a good point… though I think I'd feel more comfortable with something a little higher… tough call

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

75% was chosen to prevent any single large miner from vetoing the change.

Topic: Consensus = 75%? (Read 1004 times)