Topic: Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 4. (Read 4631 times)

Quote from: Hazir on August 23, 2015, 07:36:59 PM

How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.

You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.

And how this voluntary consensus is different from democracy? Because I can't see much difference. In democracy people do what they want or what they think is good because it will gain them profit or better government or something, miners are doing exactly the same they seek profit. The only difference that live democracy is fiction because not everyone vote, therefore we have something like votes 30% of whole nation, and from that 30% of people who voted option with 51% votes wins. With bitcoin everyone MUST choose.

The difference is simple: stupid people don't get to have everyone in society shoulder the weight of their stupidity.

How do we (we = Bitcoin Community) come to "consensus"? I wouldn't say it's a democracy in the sense that every person loosely attached to Bitcoin has precisely "one vote"--that's not how Bitcoin works. But it's not that different either. In reality, each person has a vote that carries a weight in proportion to their influence. If influence accrues to those who are wiser, then the decision of the "influence-weighted majority" will be the best decision IMO.

I would thus argue that the best approach to reaching consensus is to give the people the necessary tools to make expressing their free choice (e.g., BIP101 vs BIP100 vs no increase) as easy as possible. For this reason, I think the OP makes good sense.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.

You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.

And how this voluntary consensus is different from democracy? Because I can't see much difference. In democracy people do what they want or what they think is good because it will gain them profit or better government or something, miners are doing exactly the same they seek profit. The only difference that live democracy is fiction because not everyone vote, therefore we have something like votes 30% of whole nation, and from that 30% of people who voted option with 51% votes wins. With bitcoin everyone MUST choose.

The difference is simple: stupid people don't get to have everyone in society shoulder the weight of their stupidity.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:33:59 AM

Long has the development of bitcoin been slowed by the devs inability to agree on design decisions, it's time to put in place a system that ensures continued development / evaluation of the code base, in a low friction decentralized manner. Imagine a bitcoin where YOU as a user get a say in every design decision. we can do this today.

There is a design decision to be made, 3 possible implementations, each similar, impossible to say which way is the best way to go. Who ultimately makes the decision on which way to go? It is my belief that satoshi would want the decision to be made by community as a whole. we can achieve this today and use this process to put the block limit debate to rest.

We could have in place a system in which all the different BIP's ( design options ) can be voted on using hashing power. by having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementations. once a version number achieves 90% of hashing power that would be considered the communities will, and that version would be implemented.

what do you think?

How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.

You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.

and one more for "I don't believe in democracy" ! Grin

in all seriousness Adam you seem like a good lad, just a little misguided. you're from Montreal aren't you? I wouldn't mind going over this with you over a pint Wink

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:33:59 AM

How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.

You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.

And how this voluntary consensus is different from democracy? Because I can't see much difference. In democracy people do what they want or what they think is good because it will gain them profit or better government or something, miners are doing exactly the same they seek profit. The only difference that live democracy is fiction because not everyone vote, therefore we have something like votes 30% of whole nation, and from that 30% of people who voted option with 51% votes wins. With bitcoin everyone MUST choose.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Long has the development of bitcoin been slowed by the devs inability to agree on design decisions, it's time to put in place a system that ensures continued development / evaluation of the code base, in a low friction decentralized manner. Imagine a bitcoin where YOU as a user get a say in every design decision. we can do this today.

There is a design decision to be made, 3 possible implementations, each similar, impossible to say which way is the best way to go. Who ultimately makes the decision on which way to go? It is my belief that satoshi would want the decision to be made by community as a whole. we can achieve this today and use this process to put the block limit debate to rest.

We could have in place a system in which all the different BIP's ( design options ) can be voted on using hashing power. by having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementations. once a version number achieves 90% of hashing power that would be considered the communities will, and that version would be implemented.

what do you think?

How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.

You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 06:24:51 PM

Enter sidechains and payment networks.

not sure how that will work. we'll see Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 23, 2015, 05:55:20 PM

i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.

maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).

imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.

the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.

edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.

Enter sidechains and payment networks.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.

maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).

imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.

the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.

edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.

macsga

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1002

Strange, yet attractive.

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:20:52 PM

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

I bet those people are the most rational among all of us (FWIW: I didn't vote for that). Democracy is just another dead word that describes a dead concept, in (an almost) dead ancient language. Theoretically it exists, but in practice it's very much dead. This is a pretty long conversation and let me remind you that the above text comes from a Greek. Undecided

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:17:53 PM

it does!

bitpay public stated that it will use wtv blockchain has the most hashing power behind it.

idk what to tell you this is just an idea i have to make the forking process more tolerable, I like the idea that bitcoin can fork, and i'd like to see it happen more often, i like to think this is how bitcoin will progress,

*facepalm*

TIL the miners = the network

Bitcoin will not progress by forking everytime a new issue or challenge comes up.

The difficulty in consensus you are witnessing will only grow larger as adoption increases. Ultimately you should want the Bitcoin core protocol to ossify and require little to no change once it is considered good enough.

Bitcoin will progress by building layers on top of it. Just like any economy grows.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:20:52 PM

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

What good has ever come out of democracy?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 05:16:37 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:13:52 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 05:10:43 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

Quote

the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

Sure let's use hyperboles to try and support our points. My turn:

No one cares if 90% of the miners turn their hashing power to Aurora coins, the Bitcoin network remains although it witnesses a significant drop in its hash rate. The network doesn't fucking fork to Auroracoin does it?

it does!

bitpay public stated that it will use wtv blockchain has the most hashing power behind it.

idk what to tell you this is just an idea i have to make the forking process more tolerable, I like the idea that bitcoin can fork, and i'd like to see it happen more often, i like to think this is how bitcoin will progress,

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:13:52 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 05:10:43 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

Quote

the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

Sure let's use hyperboles to try and support our points. My turn:

No one cares if 90% of the miners turn their hashing power to Aurora coins, the Bitcoin network remains although it witnesses a significant drop in its hash rate. The network doesn't fucking fork to Auroracoin does it?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

also as it stand we haven't many options, the vote could have been done on every single BIP, with maybe a few rounds of voting each round would eliminate the lowest BIP option?

It seems to me what you want (miners voting) is actually happening as we speak. I'm not sure what difference you propose?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 05:10:43 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

Quote

the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right?

So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that

Quote

the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you.

That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses

and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too Grin

)

also as it stand we haven't many options, the vote could have been done on every single BIP, with maybe a few rounds of voting each round would eliminate the lowest BIP option?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 04:56:25 PM

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371

Quote

Why Votes Don’t Matter

Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.

but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch.

and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly...

So you understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75%* of nodes support... but a couple posts before you argue that miners are the ones calling the shot... Huh

*That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner