Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 7.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 01:05:40 PM

we force the issue by putting it to a vote, one in which nothing will happen until 90% is in agreement.

Yes - I think something like 90% would stop the hastiness and actually force people to work together (rather than to try and "take over").

Having read various posts from Mike Hearn about supporting "black-lists" (or "red-lists" or whatever) and also the ridiculous effort put into adding support for x801 certs (that seemingly no-one is even using) I don't really think that Gavin and Mike have any credibility to "run the project".

Presumably both of them already have enough money to retire - I'd plead with them to think about just doing that and letting those that actually want to do the hard work get on with just that.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 01:02:55 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 01:01:02 PM

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

I think the only thing that has "forced" things is Gavin and Mike trying to "rush things". If they didn't jump up and down claiming that Bitcoin was going to die then there wouldn't have been such a rush that has meant that other proposals are being ignored.

i think we all know this to be true, yet everyone still wants to see bigger blocks.
how do we pick a course of action when either option is viable and no one can agree.
we force the issue by putting it to a vote, one in which nothing will happen until 90% is in agreement.

what can we expect to see?

2 options become clearly dominate, the discussion gets more focused around those two options, the better of the two gets more hashing power, everyone changes their vote to this option because they are driven by the will to see progress not flatter their ego or individual conflict of interest.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 01:01:02 PM

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

I think the only thing that has "forced" things is Gavin and Mike trying to "rush things". If they didn't jump up and down claiming that Bitcoin was going to die then there wouldn't have been such a rush that has meant that other proposals are being ignored.

Really I don't see that people are using Bitcoin more and more (in fact I no longer use it for any regular spending at all and not one of my friends or family uses it at all) so the whole argument about Bitcoin running out of block space for txs seems rather odd to me (and Sergio's suggestion of using 5 minute blocks actually makes more sense than nearly anything else I've read).

All the "panic" was due to the "stress tests" of a bunch of spam txs that actually didn't stop me (or most other people) doing BTC txs anyway.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 12:58:30 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 12:55:34 PM

it would be the dev's responsibly to use their expertise to present to the miners viable options

From what I have read recently miners can express their support for one of the BIPs in each block - this seems like a reasonable approach to me.

right its already happening, only we are force to chose between to extremes, other (possibly better) options are being ignored why? because the devs are driven by conflict of interest, etc blockstream want 1MB block...

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 12:49:44 PM

Sorry adam, I don't like your idea. CIYAM is right here.

The main quality you need in order to develop something like bitcoin is expertise. The required expertise is in short supply. The inverse is the alternative; you can't develop sophisticated technology with the "everyone gets an A for effort" mentality.

And so, dare I say it, open source development teams have inherently socialistic characteristics. It's one of a few examples where socialism is preferable to free market decision making.

The wider free market is still free to reject the work of these communes, though. As it should be.

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...

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 12:55:34 PM

it would be the dev's responsibly to use their expertise to present to the miners viable options

From what I have read recently miners can express their support for one of the BIPs in each block - this seems like a reasonable approach to me (although in one topic about this I read that miners might actually be confused as to what they are supposed to put in their block so that is perhaps the fault of the devs for not clearly communicating how they should do this).

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 12:49:44 PM

Sorry adam, I don't like your idea. CIYAM is right here.

The main quality you need in order to develop something like bitcoin is expertise. The required expertise is in short supply. The inverse is the alternative; you can't develop sophisticated technology with the "everyone gets an A for effort" mentality.

And so, dare I say it, open source development teams have inherently socialistic characteristics. It's one of a few examples where socialism is preferable to free market decision making.

The wider free market is still free to reject the work of these communes, though. As it should be.

it would be the dev's responsibly to use their expertise to present to the miners viable options, not the other way around, your argument is invalid.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Sorry adam, I don't like your idea. CIYAM is right here.

The main quality you need in order to develop something like bitcoin is expertise. The required expertise is in short supply. The inverse is the alternative; you can't develop sophisticated technology with the "everyone gets an A for effort" mentality.

And so, dare I say it, open source development teams have inherently socialistic characteristics. It's one of a few examples where socialism is preferable to free market decision making.

The wider free market is still free to reject the work of these communes, though. As it should be.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

The biggest concern I have is that maybe 75% is not putting the bar high enough - if we really end up with two competing forks (and from what I have read the 75% doesn't need to hold so the XT fork would keep going even if the support had dropped below 50%) then that could really cause problems (some forum members have been talking about getting pools to "pretend to support" XT so they can sell their coins twice).

Initially I had assumed that Gavin was not going to do anything so hastily and had assumed that rational minds would be led towards consensus by reason but unfortunately it does seem that now that is no longer the case.

There have already been issues in the past with soft forks and an accidental hard fork so I don't think it is actually very responsible for people to play political games with this.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:05:05 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:52:13 AM

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

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."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

That being said we do have the voting power of miners and of peers and IMO that should be used to determine the future (and I don't think 75% is enough of a majority for a hard fork which I was rather disappointed to discover XT has decided to use when initial communications had indicated that a 95% majority would be required).

To clarify the confusion - it should not be up to the "general population" to make a vote but up to those who actually are the key participants (in particular the miners).

A 95% consensus would indeed be preferable but on the other hand is a large group of poeple can reach such a consensus? I doubt it. If not, it could also lead to an impasse where consensus is impossible and block any development ( just like what is happening with Core)....

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

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:05:05 PM

A 95% consensus would indeed be preferable but on the other hand is a large group of poeple can reach such a consensus? I doubt it. If not, it could also lead to an impasse where consensus is impossible and block any development ( just like what is happening with Core)....

Personally I don't see we actually have an impasse (but it does appear that Gavin and Mike are trying to push this agenda) as there are BIPs from the Bitcoin Core devs about increasing the block size.

About the only good thing that has come of all this block size debate has been that the price of BTC has been going up and down making it a great time for day-trading.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:52:13 AM

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

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."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

That being said we do have the voting power of miners and of peers and IMO that should be used to determine the future (and I don't think 75% is enough of a majority for a hard fork which I was rather disappointed to discover XT has decided to use when initial communications had indicated that a 95% majority would be required).

To clarify the confusion - it should not be up to the "general population" to make a vote but up to those who actually are the key participants (in particular the miners).

A 95% consensus would indeed be preferable but on the other hand is a large group of poeple can reach such a consensus? I doubt it. If not, it could also lead to an impasse where consensus is impossible and block any development ( just like what is happening with Core)....

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:52:13 AM

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

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."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

Thank you for the honest reply.

Consensus is an interesting problem. I would tend to agree that if every person loosely attached to Bitcoin had "one vote," then the results would be negative. However, 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.

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

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

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

isnt that an oxymoron?

Hahaha, I'm not sure. What do others think?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

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

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

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:41:54 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?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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

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."

Yes - I think I would (he says feeling that he has just walked into a spring loaded trap).

That being said we do have the voting power of miners and of peers and IMO that should be used to determine the future (and I don't think 75% is enough of a majority for a hard fork which I was rather disappointed to discover XT has decided to use when initial communications had indicated that a 95% majority would be required).

To clarify the confusion - it should not be up to the "general population" to make a vote but up to those who actually are the key participants (in particular the miners).

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

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

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:41:54 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?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:44:45 AM

having gavin fork the blockchain is a better way to government bitcoins development?

I don't think we need a "personality" to govern the development (my preference would always be for a "figurehead" rather than a "benevolent dictator") but maybe we do need some more clearer ways of solving the consensus of development.

Again I don't see the need to rush this and allow Gavin and Mike to simply "take over control" because somehow we should trust them.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:41:54 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.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on August 23, 2015, 11:41:54 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."

Topic: Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 7. (Read 4631 times)