Topic: Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 6. (Read 4631 times)

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 03:53:22 PM

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

Brg444, do you agree with this statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

"Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

Who is "the people"?

I don't want to sound like a broken record but this is, again, meaningless socialist drivel.

There is no such thing as "the people". Only individuals. Now do I agree that some individuals have absolutely no say in the decision making of Bitcoin? Absolutely.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:51:12 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:40:27 AM

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. Cheesy

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 12:14:48 PM

i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.

it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process

I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 03:53:22 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:51:12 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:51:12 PM

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

Brg444, do you agree with this statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

"Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:40:27 AM

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. Cheesy

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.

Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 12:02:39 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:51:43 AM

Quote from: Peter R on August 23, 2015, 11:46:44 AM

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

Would you then agree with the statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution):

"Consensus is too important to be left to the people."

isnt that an oxymoron?

it obviously wouldn't be the little poeple voting it would be the miners who has invested interest in seeing bitcoin grow in the best possible way. consider the alternative, Core Vs XT, while everyone is ready and willing to increase the block limit, egos and political BS turn a simple update into a full on war.

ultimately the will of the majority will win, this is the nature of bitcoin, try as they might devs will never be able to make changes that a big % of users do not agree with, why not streamline the process so thing happen in a calm and orderly fashion?

You make the classic mistake of assuming all miners are equal. This is somehow typical of classic socialist tendencies to group people of different background, resources, motives and intentions together as if there is somehow a way to generalize and predict their decisions. You need to get rid of that mindset immediately. Miners are individuals and therefore it is foolish to expect them to all share the same ideology as to how Bitcoin should grow.

The consensus nature of Bitcoin is precisely there to defend ourselves against "the ~~will~~tyranny of the majority" and their master puppeteer.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:40:27 AM

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. Cheesy

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

maybe it should be.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:38:05 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:40:27 AM

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. Cheesy

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 03:32:18 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 01:14:26 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 01:09:23 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:58:45 PM

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

What the fuck adam Huh

This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes.

You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them...

What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.

well like it or not this is currently whats happening with XT, miners will determine weather or not bitcoin forks to XT.

is this the best way to vote on changes? probably not.

i like the hash rate idea, because it jives with what is currently going on, encourages more people to mine so they can participate in the voting. and weeds out non-tech poeple whose vote probably wouldn't have much thought behind it because they can't be bothered to have a mining rig. plus its easy to setup a lot of fake nodes while its impossible to fake hashing power.

maybe a better way would be to have the 1 BTC 1 Vote system in which, bitcoin wallets would cast votes by signing a msg with their wallet?

point is it would be really nice to have a more democratic and decentralized bitcoin dev decision making process, suddenly being thrown into a Core Vs XT war and being forced to pick one of the two extremist options isn't as elegant.

The XT decision will never end up to the miner if there is a node consensus against XT.

You seriously need to reconsider the whole democratic thing. I voted "I don't believe in democracy" because it has failed us times and times again and simply isn't an option. Democracy will have you pretend that every voice is equal. That is absolutely not the case in Bitcoin.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:40:27 AM

you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??

If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. Cheesy

A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.

We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say.

And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game?

bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on August 23, 2015, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 01:14:26 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 01:09:23 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:58:45 PM

The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...

all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics.

but they clearly cannot be made to agree

if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively and then make a decision, the community would do the same.

dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants.

if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind.

What the fuck adam Huh

This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes.

You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them...

What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.

well like it or not this is currently whats happening with XT, miners will determine weather or not bitcoin forks to XT.

is this the best way to vote on changes? probably not.

i like the hash rate idea, because it jives with what is currently going on, encourages more people to mine so they can participate in the voting. and weeds out non-tech poeple whose vote probably wouldn't have much thought behind it because they can't be bothered to have a mining rig. plus its easy to setup a lot of fake nodes while its impossible to fake hashing power.

maybe a better way would be to have the 1 BTC 1 Vote system in which, bitcoin wallets would cast votes by signing a msg with their wallet?

point is it would be really nice to have a more democratic and decentralized bitcoin dev decision making process, suddenly being thrown into a Core Vs XT war and being forced to pick one of the two extremist options isn't as elegant.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 11:49:19 AM