Topic: Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 2. (Read 4631 times)

Exactly, that article still involves some vote to test if everyone is satisfied with the decision. But it is a very abstract directive, how we should implement it in bitcoin community is to be seen

Anyway, in a consensus based decision making, we can at least say that we have made all the possible efforts to reach a 100% consensus, so no one feel that he is left over

For example we have solution A,B,C,D,E, after several rounds of evaluation we realized that solution D have the most support and the least resistance, so we could select D as the solution. In this way, the people originally against D will understand that D is the best consensus we can reach, so if he take consensus as the highest priority, he would accept D, although D is not his favorite. Of course D should not be strongly resisted by any one, that will not make it a suitable solution

Step 5 of your model is to "Test The Proposal" in which there is a kind of "voting" that is going on. I think the consensus mechanism being discussed is the best way to implement step 5 of your consensus model. Ultimately a "voting" period is necessary, but the end result is 100% consensus with the best proposal.

I don't exactly understand how longest chain can be a measure? when you have a fork, both chain is the longest in its own version of bitcoin

My understanding is that consensus building should involve everyone in bitcoin ecosystem. There are many large actors who don't even run bitcoin nodes, not even mention hash power, they also have their own interest and concern

I sounds like we're arguing semantics.  My definition of "consensus" with regards to Bitcoin is empirical: the longest chain composed of valid transactions has "consensus."  It sounds like you view consensus as more like unanimity.  I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong in our definitions.  However, my definition seems more practical: we can measure the longest chain.  How can we tell if 100% of the network supports something?  Under what conditions is it reasonable to expect exactly 100% support for something?

Furthermore, isn't it clear that 100% of the network is not in favour of keeping the block size limited at 1 MB?  Why should stasis be the default in the case of a stalemate?

...
And please stop "developer centralization" concern trolling. Bitcoin XT is a one man show. If you sign up for this you are electing that Bitcoin development be headed by a notoriously controversial individual who has a rap sheet for being very pro-corporations and governments...

The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense.  He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc.  If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become.  He wants to give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)).

The reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks. There are very good reasons why most of the core developers and Bitcoin experts are super cautious with increasing the block size too quickly. But these reasons are hard to explain to regular users of Bitcoin. Yet, it is quite easy for Mike & Gavin to convince people that supporting BitcoinXT means supporting block size increase, which makes Bitcoin scale for worldwide use, and it's what Satoshi intended. BitcoinXT is set to trigger with 75% miner support. This means it can trigger with only 50% miner support + a lucky streak. Or if there are malicious people running NoXT, they can cause the trigger to go off without majority support. When that happens, there's no guarantee that the losing side will all switch to running BitcoinXT. Now you've got a split user base and miner base. Some wallets will support BTC, some will support BTCXT, and some may support both. Same for exchanges and payment processors. It's going to be total chaos. Miners will switch back and forth between mining BTC and BTCXT. Users will send transactions on one network and not know why the recipient didn't get it. The price for both coins will tank. If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus

That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE

If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus

That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE

By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

I suppose you can call it a sort of vote, but I respectfully disagree that it would be a negative.  In fact, IMO, what Adam described in the OP would simply be Bitcoin's consensus mechanism playing out before our eyes.  From the white paper (paraphrased):

- Nodes assemble valid transactions into a block and work to find a proof-of-work.

- Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it.

- The longest chain composed of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  



By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.  
 

That's still a vote, what if the minority of the hash power don't want to use larger blocks? You are still forcing a change on them. And those minorities might command much larger stake in bitcoin ecosystem than you can imagine, they could easily destroy your majority fork with the flip of a pen

Please read this article again if you are interested
http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense.  He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc.  If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become.  Give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)).

It would be helpful to have a version of Core + BIP101 released by an independent party (to calm the fears about the other changes in XT [although I believe those fears are baseless]).  This is what jonald_fyookball and jwinterm proposed a few minutes ago here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12224417

"What's wrong with voting?

.. you've conveniently missed out other risks on your decision matrix. Like minimally-reviewed, untested code, anti-privacy agendas of the developers involved in XT ... so conservative decision on an honest matrix, I'd say no.

Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.

14% of the nodes are buying it as of today.  That's up from 0% a little over a week ago.  Let's see how much of the hash power is buying it two months from now...

XT is DOA and supported only by a circle jerk of /r/bitcoin exiles running pretendnodes on 15$ VPS accounts.

It is fair to say only a very irrelevant amount of full nodes holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain are actually running XT as we speak