Exaclty. I believe the free market is the only one that can take the best decision for it. As long as it has choices.
Those who think they can overule the free market are agaisnt the very principles of decentralization and bitcoin as a whole and can go work for central banks that will share their views.
Topic: Decentralized decision making, hashing toward a better bitcoin - page 8. (Read 4631 times)
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.
having gavin fork the blockchain is a better way to government bitcoins development?
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.
A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.
To be honest it sounds like a "popularity contest" rather than a well thought out technical solution to a problem (this has been my thinking about this whole issue ever since XT embarked on the alarmist idea that Bitcoin is going to die and that they are going to fork by "convincing others" that they should follow them).
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??
To be honest it sounds like a "popularity contest" rather than a well thought out technical solution to a problem (this has been my thinking about this whole issue ever since XT embarked on the alarmist idea that Bitcoin is going to die and that they are going to fork it by "convincing others" that they should follow them).
I'm yet to be convinced that Bitcoin is broken to the point that we need to suddenly rush in the change and abandon the core devs in the process.
Also in the middle of the "stress test" I actually sent BTC amounts with no fee and with no problem (as the UTXOs were well aged the txs confirmed very quickly) so the "panic" seems rather out of proportion to the reality.
I'm yet to be convinced that Bitcoin is broken to the point that we need to suddenly rush in the change and abandon the core devs in the process.
Also in the middle of the "stress test" I actually sent BTC amounts with no fee and with no problem (as the UTXOs were well aged the txs confirmed very quickly) so the "panic" seems rather out of proportion to the reality.
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 and BTC. By having different version numbers attached to a block mined corresponding to the different proposed implementations (exactly how XT is gauging its support) we would quickly see where miners stand. We could also set up wallets corresponding to the different proposed implementations, people would send a tiny amount of BTC to the address they want to vote for, they could change their vote by sending another tiny amount to another address. This would prove they own X amount of bitcoin, and are in favor of BIP XXX, and in that way we would gauge where the economic marjory stand. This "Voting system" wouldn't be the deciding factor as to what BIP gets implemented, ultimately this is in the hands of the devs, but it would be hard for devs to continue to push for a BIP with very little support by the community, and it would be easier for the devs to agree to BIPXXX after seeing an overwhelming majority of the community vote for BIPXXX. All this system would really do is give the devs and the community itself an accurate picture of what the community wants or doesn't want Before drastic measures are taken like BitcoinXT Vs BitcoinCore
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."
Lets take this a step future and add the ability for miners and BTC to express their acceptance of a particular BIP, making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.
Without this system, what do we see in times of disagreement? In this case we are faced with two extremist choices no block limit increase at all ( Core ) or a huge increase ( XT ), mean while most agree we should bump up the limit at least a little, most are unhappy with either camp, yet are voices are ignored, as ego and self interest fuel the devs decision making. i think we can all agree both not bumping the limit at all, or increasing it so much so that that becomes the solution to scalability are both not the best decision bitcoin should take at this time, why are we force to choose??
what do you think?
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 and BTC. By having different version numbers attached to a block mined corresponding to the different proposed implementations (exactly how XT is gauging its support) we would quickly see where miners stand. We could also set up wallets corresponding to the different proposed implementations, people would send a tiny amount of BTC to the address they want to vote for, they could change their vote by sending another tiny amount to another address. This would prove they own X amount of bitcoin, and are in favor of BIP XXX, and in that way we would gauge where the economic marjory stand. This "Voting system" wouldn't be the deciding factor as to what BIP gets implemented, ultimately this is in the hands of the devs, but it would be hard for devs to continue to push for a BIP with very little support by the community, and it would be easier for the devs to agree to BIPXXX after seeing an overwhelming majority of the community vote for BIPXXX. All this system would really do is give the devs and the community itself an accurate picture of what the community wants or doesn't want Before drastic measures are taken like BitcoinXT Vs BitcoinCore
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."
Lets take this a step future and add the ability for miners and BTC to express their acceptance of a particular BIP, making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.
Without this system, what do we see in times of disagreement? In this case we are faced with two extremist choices no block limit increase at all ( Core ) or a huge increase ( XT ), mean while most agree we should bump up the limit at least a little, most are unhappy with either camp, yet are voices are ignored, as ego and self interest fuel the devs decision making. i think we can all agree both not bumping the limit at all, or increasing it so much so that that becomes the solution to scalability are both not the best decision bitcoin should take at this time, why are we force to choose??
what do you think?
Jump to: