Topic: Experiment - Achieving consensus where there is disagreement - page 3. (Read 3214 times)

Ok, assuming 95% is not a good threshold, why is 75% the best option?

well consider this, if you set the bar for minimal hashing at 95% a large miner or pool can single handedly veto the change and ruin it for everyone else, in which case it's likely that the network would simple go ahead with the change anyway. 95% is ideal but not a good minimal limit.

I voted 95% and am not trolling. This thread has not given a compelling argument to change my mind, my opinion cannot be bought out so easily.

I voted higher than 75% as I was thinking about bitcoin and think majority consent should be set to a higher standard for more serious discussions. While 75% may seem like a good majority I think too many people go with the crowd, so it might not represent their true feelings.

I know plenty of people even in real life elections are influenced by polls and vote for the candidate in the lead as they "Don't want to waste their vote on a losing candidate" which if they would step back they would realize their vote is wasted by not voting for who they feel would do the best job, regardless of outcome. Since so many people do this, their beliefs become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Thus why I think 75% is too low to represent a true consensus, as at least a third of that 75% are too easily influenced in their views. In other words I believe only a fraction of the majority really understand and have a deep commitment to their view, or a follow the herd mentality.

As far as to the accuracy of this poll, I feel along with the above statements, that there will simply be people to try and disrupt your poll for the fun of it (trolling).

I changed my vote to 75% because I think it has the best chance at gaining 90%  (ironically 90% is well in the lead on the modified experiment poll)

did anyone vote anything other then 75% and isn't trolling?

why? please lets hear your thoughts.

Well at least around here we have enough of these famous trolls. I mean this must be the forum with the most trolls out on the Internet. If we would be able to pay them for their trolling, they would be already rich.

Just be the benevolent dictator and drop the hammer on what you prefer. People can deal with it or go play with the traffic.

I guess, the only thing, this experiment will prove, is that there are always enough people on a forum to troll an experiment.
I don't think, you can apply that to Bitcoin.

75% is at 51.1%

please change your votes to 75%, do it for the kids.

Just so everyone is aware, a modification of this experiment is going on here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162199.20

In which the incentive to reach consensus is a chance to win free bitcoins!  The contest ends tonight at 3 AM so make sure change your vote to 90% before then so we all have a chance of winning!


For this experiment it may be the case that people do not care about poor kids in africa  perhaps it is not enough incentive… And also perhaps a time limit is required to reach a conclusions. Either way I like that there are two versions of the experiment so we can see which works best, participate in both!

if you care about the poor kids in africa you'll change your vote.

In this video: https://youtu.be/sE7998qfjgk

Andreas Antonopoulos states that there is a voting period during which miners vote with their hashing power on the new version, and once a "supermajority" of 75% is reached this is a signal to the rest of the minors to agree to the new version, this is "the grace Period", once 95% of the previous thousand blocks are ALL signed with the new version, this is a "transition period", after 95% consensus is reached, then all none new version blocks are then considered invalid and are rejected as invalid.

So once the previous 1000 blocks reaches 75% it signals that the new version is required, and 95% signals that all non new version blocks are rejected.

Now I am confused as to what constitutes "consensus", is it 75% or 95%?

Also at the end of his video he shows that if you go against consensus and try to maintain an alternate block chain you will essentially be expending mining power for nothing and losing money. It makes more financial sense for the miners to mine the longer chain with consensus than it does to risk expending expensive energy to mine an alternate chain that is an extremely high likelihood of discontinuing and thus refunding all transactions and mining rewards that cannot be spent until after 100 blocks are mined anyway.

Miners would have to mine the alternate chain for 100 blocks on faith that it will be maintained for a full 100 blocks, risking waisting a lot of time and energy and money for nothing, when they could be just mining the valid chain that has reached full consensus for a change.

All transactions that are made on both chains during a maintained fork are known as "double spends" that are eventually refunded and erased from history.

Very informative video!

To encourage people to change their vote, I pledge to donate 50,000 bits (0.05 BTC) to https://worldaid.org/donate-bitcoin-for-charity/ if 90% consensus can be reached for any one option for over 12 hours!

First of all I think I think is wonderful experiment!

Me personally I see 75% as a threshold for "supermajority" but not "consensus" and I think the two should be separated into two different categories.

I think with the 75% threshold the risk is still too high to have a large section of the community that disagrees with the decision of the MINERS lets not forget these are MINERs that are voting here, and so that section of the community could threaten to split the chain in the event of a fork.

In the interest of avoiding this scenario which could be argued to be the DEATH of Bitcoin as we know it, I propose that 90% should be the threshold for consensus. As we have seen with the XT proposal of 75% fork, we see a VERY LARGE and VERY DETERMINED group threatening to split bitcoin into two different chains. This should be evidence that 75% is not enough for a successful fork, and we should all push for 90% agreement as consensus!

75% voting majority plus a 2-week grace period should see a wave of laggards move across and the total becomes more like 90% anyway before the change takes effect.

looks like i wont have to make a donation to worldaid.org

There will be signs that showing a system is approaching its design limit, when you have more and more frequent complain from different users, its time to plan an upgrade

Humans are adaptive, when banks are closed during weekends, they don't dispute the way that bank works, they just patiently wait until Monday. Same, if bitcoin network is experiencing traffic jam, they will take temporary measure to reduce the transaction frequency and increase the amount transferred each time, to make it more competitive fee wise

So, this ability of adapt to change will give people enough time to implement a new solution

Capacity planning trumps the "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" point, which is usually very good advice.