Mike Hearn seems like he doesn't believe in the Decentralized Consensus Decision Making model at a deep philosophical level and he thinks we should elect a benevolent dictator to make decisions for us.
I disagree, I think the decentralized consensus decision making model works. We don't need a king to make a decision.
Topic: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" - page 5. (Read 2707 times)
September 02, 2015, 10:33:40 AM
September 02, 2015, 10:30:41 AM
- snip-
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)
Why? Because he is pointing how the decision making process is actually broken which is true?
No because he's a threat to freedom and god only knows what else.
BEWARE OF MIKE HEARN ALL USER READING THIS
September 02, 2015, 10:26:02 AM
- snip-
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)
Why? Because he is pointing how the decision making process is actually broken which is true?
September 02, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
September 02, 2015, 10:12:23 AM
September 02, 2015, 09:20:37 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cunzj9z
Quote
I wasn't asked to sign it. The first time I saw it was today.
Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with.
It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here.
I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time".
It says:
But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says:
https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/
Additionally it says governance will not be discussed.
So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion.
I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach.
The final statement I'd disagree with is this one:
The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.
Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with.
It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here.
I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time".
It says:
Quote
We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process.
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process.
But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says:
https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/
Quote
Absolutely no decisions are made at workshops
There will probably be no debate
There will probably be no debate
Additionally it says governance will not be discussed.
So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion.
I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach.
The final statement I'd disagree with is this one:
Quote
We believe this is the way forward and reinforces the existing review process that has served the Bitcoin development community (and Bitcoin in general) well to date
The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.
Jump to: