Topic: Experiment - Achieving consensus where there is disagreement (Read 3214 times)

If you group the votes in 90% or up and less than 90% you get an almost perfect 50-50 split at the moment

I think this experiment was a complete success in proving that you can achieve dissensus without too much effort.

reset the blockchain

no.

and, do we have windowsBeta or windows95,NT,XP,7,10???

yes but then bitcoin should still be classed as beta, and blockchain reset when it comes out of beta.

gold can't change, bitcoin can, its a feature not a bug. I agree no change shouldn't be made lightly,  but it's unrealistic to think bitcoin can't improve and should not. maybe in 10 years everything will be fully ironed out and there will literally be no point in ever changing anything, then again at that point we might want to enable the scripting language bitcoin was designed to handle. and then open up the door to all kinds of possible improvements in the scripting language.

Gold never changes in thousands of years. If bitcoin is to become the new digital gold, it should have similar properties: Immune to human's influence

Basically the bitcoin's fundamental principles are all set, so in principle any BIP should be rejected unless reaching 100% consensus. If bitcoin really have some problem, then consensus will reach to improve it

To the children of this forum or those in greater need?

i will donate 10BTC should the poll report 90% for one option

its likely poeple will vote for BIP101 while not being opposed to BIP100, they simply prefer BIP101, but will  happily update to BIP100 onces the decision has been made. 90% doesn't allow for miners to vote for their preference, it forces them to vote for what they think everyone else will vote for.

There is no prospect of an agreement on this survey.

What next? This will just get kicked down the road until there is some urgency.

Perhaps, someone will fork this thread? In fact, if you don't agree on an outcome within the next 8 days, I will fork the thread to an XAdam Experiment and the children will get their donation - 75% will be the only survey choice.

I will also cover the non-XAdam Experiment thread option - but that will not have a survey 

but are they necessarily saying that they wouldn't secure the blockchain should there BIP they are supporting lose?

probably not...

probably they are expressing a preference.

If there are 3 perfectly valid BIPs and one of them gets 90% hashing power it's a no brainer, that BIP is somehow far superior.

90% is idealy
75% is a threshold

if we could get all the 90%'ters to switch their vote i could donate some BTC...

if you still not convinced about 75% read this, or read the thread.


 
90%'ter argument is basicly "i'm scared that 2 forks will be created"

Finally someone that gets it.

A consensus protocol like bitcoin is ALWAYS 100% of the participants.  That's what consensus means.

If the fork triggers at 5%, you'll still have 100% consensus of the participants.  You'll just have it with a very insecure system since you won't have enough hash power to keep your blockchain secure against an attack.

This is the reason that 75% of the blocks (not 75% of the miners, and not 75% of the nodes) was chosen.  The miners aren't "voting".  They are simply stating that they are willing to use their hash power to secure the blockchain.  Once it is clear that there is enough hash power behind the idea, it becomes "safe" to split off.  The remaining hash power is welcome to continue to support their old blockchain if they want to, but they'll be supporting a relatively insecure system.

Pretty much every altcoin is just a fork of bitcoin that just happens to trigger at the genesis block.  This means that bitcoin already has less than 100% of the "vote" of all crypto-currency participants.  What percentage does it have?  Does it matter?  All that matters is that it has enough hash power to remain secure.  If a hard fork is implemented and less than 100% of the current miners choose to participate, then there will be two bitcoin systems.  One of them will be more secure than the other.  How much more secure will depend on the exact distribution of hash power between them.

They might both choose to call themselves "bitcoin" (which will lead to some confusion with the users) or they may choose to change their name to clear up some of that confusion.  Perhaps the old protocol will change to "LegacyBitcoin"  or perhaps the new protocol will change to "Bitcoin2016".  That's really up to the users to decide.

If you set the vote limit at 75%, then once you reach that limit you have 100% consensus. The 25% can fork off and die; else join the 100% consenting group. 

I suppose this should be read as 75% vs. > 75%, since that is the threshold required to proceed with the BIP 101 hard fork. In that regard, the tally is currently 56% in favor of > 75% vs. 44% in favor of 75%. These polls can be easily gamed, I know.

Nevertheless, it does seem there is some opposition to the idea of allowing a hard fork to proceed with as little as 75% network consensus.

I changed back to 90% too. Do you think instead of the traditional 75% supermajority and then 95% consensus it would be beneficial to change it to 75% majority and then 90% consensus? 95% has worked every time so far...

another 90%er checking in.

91% of the poeple disagree with you.

so in by your very definition we have reached consensus that 90% can't be considered the threshold

HA put that in your pipe and smoke it  

wait no thats the 95% option that has 91% of the poeple disagree with. never mind whatever 75% all the way

I don't think we can call 75% consensus. That's more like 50% or so + a lucky streak. I believe consensus is basically paramount to virtually all other concerns in regard to the protocol. And that certainly includes a contentious debate about block size.

I concur -- 90%.

100% and only 100% is true consensus.

but when you talk about miners voting on one of many BIPs we can't actually expect them to reach 95% or 100%

all the BIPs have pros and cons, there is no RIGHT or WRONG answer, its just opinions...

once the change is made and everyone updates, its fact, bitcoin is exactly THIS, everyone agrees and we have "consensus"...