Topic: On consensus principle - page 2. (Read 1319 times)

He seems to be more concerned about procedure rather than results. I guess as long as the proper procedure is followed and Gavin et al. raise their hands before going to the restroom (raise one finger for number one and two fingers for number two), everything will be just fine.

Why? Is it because I said something you don't like and proved you wrong? Or do you think that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I am always open to other people's proof. Perhaps you could explain why I'm wrong.

yeah, dude.I think it'll be ok to ignore you for a moment...

There is no veto. No one vetoed, and most certainly the community did not veto. Just look at the polls and various voting regarding this issue. The community is split, but neither side has enough people to gain consensus. Since there has been no actual implementation of proposed change, there has been no way so far to determine truly if consensus will be achieved since there is no option yet to change to a client which supports larger blocks. Furthermore, if there is no consensus, then the fork will not occur and Bitcoin will remain as it is.

Although there has been no veto, there has been plenty of discussion about both of these options. After reading the dev mailing list, it appears that Gavin is willing to compromise, as are other people active in Bitcoin's development, though I haven't seen other core devs so far. Currently, it seems that people are willing to go with a less drastic increase to around 8 MB instead of 20 MB.

Gavin has said that if the developers do not reach consensus about the issue, he will leave the group and work on the implementation himself with Mike Hearn on his Bitcoin XT fork.

This is how you normally do it:



In consensus principles the minority has a right to veto. If they choose to do so their concerns must be heard and the proposal modified until this concerns are resolved. In the end you have a solid consensus and can go forward implementing a solution that is accepted by everyone. It can especially with controversial things take a lot of time and several adjustements of a proposal until it's getting to a consensus. In rare cases no consensus is possible and that means the thing needs to be layed down.
The good thing is: every decision made this way is supported by the entire group and you do not have fights for power within such groups as long as the veto of the minorities is respected.


All that shit is actually part of non-violent communication and mediation strategies aswell.
You can also run politics on it, no doubt.

The devteam seems to be too numb or simply doesn't have that information to successfully function that way which is pretty sad because this actually comes to people naturally if they behave in a civilized and respectful manner with each other.

The larger the group the more time consuming it gets but also: the larger the group the better the results are.

One thing that is poison for any consensus finding process is putting timely pressure on a decision. That's a known fact. Good consensus will not happen in a heated and stressed environment.

I'm going look for some flowcharts right now cuz people obviously never have seen any of that stuff.

Um, I am sorry but I am not 100% sure what OP is trying to say.  But the problem is that the 1mb limit is quickly being met and will soon be surpassed.  Something needs to be done about it.  Gavin's idea is the best solution right now and will prevent pain down the road.  You are correct in that if there is not consensus then it will not be implemented.  But SOMETHING needs to be done or it will be trouble.

Edit:  No there will not be two chains, there will not be double coins, there will not be an alt coin.  All of this is just fud and misinformation being spread around the forums.  If you read up and care to understand the issue you will see it is really not as frightening as it first seems.

If what you're saying is widely shared then there will be two chains unavoidably, if on the other hand you are just an individual and part of a minority and most people would be actually genuinely looking for consensus then you'd have to leave the group one way or another and consensus could thereafter be established with certainty.

But all in all sounds like two chains to me... saves me the time of the day though wich is nice also. I'm on exchange setting my stop losses if you seek me. Have a good one.


edit: was reading your comment again. You are obviously a monkey too because what you write doesn't even make sense. For your stupid monkey ass: consensus means "everyone agrees on something". So that would actually include yourself aswell as long as you'd respect the right of others to agree and disagree in the same way as you youself are doing. I don't know if people even get the gist of it. Obviously not.

Most of us don't give a damn about the principles concerning consensus democratic groups. We care about Bitcoin and its future, so we won't be leaving Bitcoin if we're not part of the consensus. 

Are you people jaded? I'm not talking about mastercard or tps but about the process of establishing a consensus. 98% of you monkeys have not a fucking clue what a consensus actually is or what the word even means. This includes but is not limited to Gavinbaby.

None of you clowns have in their entire life even taken part in an orderly consensus seeking and finding process. There are rules to a consensus process same as there are rules in a democratic parliament with majority votes. These rules are just different. There's a large set of tools to your availability to actually find a consensus but you people behave like medival apes especailly Gavin!

Huh, the fork will not happen unless 90%+ of people are using Bitcoin XT, by that point the fork would happen and that would mean people wants XT, simple as that.

1MB is not enough, but 20MB is not enough as well, if we want to compete with Mastercard and friends. Right now Bitcoin's transaction per second volume is extremely poor.

You do realize i do not talk about blocksize but about consensus mechanisms in consensus democratic groups of people (not machines)? A thing you perhaps aren't familiar with.

you realize that bitcoin was released without any limit right? the one wrong here is the actual core implementation with 1mb restriction, not the 20mb proposal

Gavin is doing the right thing, the very wrong proposal is the lighiting network, which in the end it does need an increase in the limit anyway, see the stupidity behind that?

the current situation cannot last long, it's temporary, core must be changed/forked, even satoshy said so about greater adoption and TX/s limit

I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.

The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on that particular change and you need to accept that.

After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)

That is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying.
It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it.

If there would be interest in a real solution and people would have a interest in a non-violent way to find a solution i could think about sharing some info on consensus principles. Most can be read online, there are a lot of different methods though. The most basic method was outlined above.

The Gavintards can now stop crying and a) leave the group or b) produce a new proposal which does not get a veto. If the new proposal gets veto again you can produce another proposal and so on until you have one that can be accepted by everyone. Else there would be more sophisticated but also more complicated methods of approaching consensus wich have more hope for success than a process blocked by veto but as i said i'm not even starting on that in the current climate and the Gavintards so far also only showed a first proposal which was declined.

So really no need to cry like babies. Show some other proposals. 'My way or the highway' is DOA