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.
Topic: The Consensus Decision Process (Read 908 times)
You're a prodigy. So am I. This is how consensus is built and decisions are made through a system that embraces consensus.
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
This is exactly the threath, people are realizing hat this is just another form of evil and ego's
PM's sent to both of you guys, let's do this!
Maybe once we have the letter we can implement a site like the below or change.org to get the signatures from the community and the Bitcoin holders:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vote-on-whether-you-want-bigger-blocks-by-signing-with-your-coin-1157599
A lot of folks have used the word "vote" in regards to the discussion about whether or not we should treat a block with size > 1MB as valid.
I'm not saying a vote is the solution, but I am saying this: We built a platform for you to place and count verifiable votes.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who hold the coin might have some say in the matter? I'm mostly curious what people who actually - have bitcoin - think, rather than some anonodweebs or pseudodevs.
http://coin-vote.com/poll/557573b91ce32f881a045135
Go, place your vote. It's free, safe, and publicly verifiable, and if you don't like the wording - make another.
For more information on the voting system:
http://frass.woodcoin.org/introducing-coin-vote/
I'm not saying a vote is the solution, but I am saying this: We built a platform for you to place and count verifiable votes.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who hold the coin might have some say in the matter? I'm mostly curious what people who actually - have bitcoin - think, rather than some anonodweebs or pseudodevs.
http://coin-vote.com/poll/557573b91ce32f881a045135
Go, place your vote. It's free, safe, and publicly verifiable, and if you don't like the wording - make another.
For more information on the voting system:
http://frass.woodcoin.org/introducing-coin-vote/
In this case "the winner" would be the person that figures out a BIP that achieves consensus first. so maybe devs wouldn't be so hard headed, and more willing to change their BIP over and over trying to be the first one to get there BIP to achieve consensus first.
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
Exactly! Adam do you think we could come up with a proposal, but it in a letter form, and start getting signatures from the community??
we can sure as hell try!
we should get johnyj to help
In this case "the winner" would be the person that figures out a BIP that achieves consensus first. so maybe devs wouldn't be so hard headed, and more willing to change their BIP over and over trying to be the first one to get there BIP to achieve consensus first.
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
Exactly! Adam do you think we could come up with a proposal, but it in a letter form, and start getting signatures from the community??
In this case "the winner" would be the person that figures out a BIP that achieves consensus first. so maybe devs wouldn't be so hard headed, and more willing to change their BIP over and over trying to be the first one to get there BIP to achieve consensus first.
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
As it stands now devs seem more interested in lobbying and achieving consensus by convincing everyone that there solution is best rather than actually trying to figure out what BIP will achieves consensus.
+1
I think we as a community should come up with a LETTER of our own like was issued today by several companies' CEOs in the industry, but we should it describing how we want consensus to be handled, and it should be signed as the demands of THE BITCOIN COMMUNITY at large.
All BIPs should be as easy to "vote" for with hash power as XT currently is, and the community at large should be able to see which one gains consensus. Currently the two options are "vote for XT" or "continue to run Core", we want all of the BIPs added to this list, and we want 90% consensus reached not 75%.
How is the best way to create such a letter and get signatures like a petition??? Is there a site? He need to put this together, get tons of signatures listing our demands for consensus as THE BITCOIN COMMUNITY, and we need to get it to the developers and CEO's of Bitcoin companies.
Let's do this!!!1!!
All BIPs should be as easy to "vote" for with hash power as XT currently is, and the community at large should be able to see which one gains consensus. Currently the two options are "vote for XT" or "continue to run Core", we want all of the BIPs added to this list, and we want 90% consensus reached not 75%.
How is the best way to create such a letter and get signatures like a petition??? Is there a site? He need to put this together, get tons of signatures listing our demands for consensus as THE BITCOIN COMMUNITY, and we need to get it to the developers and CEO's of Bitcoin companies.
Let's do this!!!1!!
Whilst we are fighting each other, the competitors are gaining ground. I like your suggestion a lot, but it's going to take a lot of time to reach consensus, if we take that route. We need something where decisions can be made very quickly, to adapt to problems that might need urgent attention.
This in-fighting is causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin and the rate at which it would have grown, if everyone just concentrated on the same thing. Now we see two groups fighting for changes to make core developers rich and famous.
This in-fighting is causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin and the rate at which it would have grown, if everyone just concentrated on the same thing. Now we see two groups fighting for changes to make core developers rich and famous.
There is a modification that can be used for quick consensus here: http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus
The example given describes a decision to be made within two minutes but refers to a small group.
Quote
“The BlockChain can only be modified through consensus, and it’s that feature that makes Bitcoin both secure and trustworthy. If the network of peers does not agree on the validity of a transaction, it’s not added to he BlockChain and the transaction is not verified.
When the network achieves consensus on the validity of a transaction, it’s added to the BlockChain of all Bitcoins. When you add a transaction to the BlockChain, essentially writing it to the record, it effectively authorizes the transaction.
Bitcoin transactions are not instantaneous, it takes a few minutes for the peer network to arrive at consensus. But the consensus, once you’ve got it, is authoritative because the entire network is vouching for a transactions authenticity. It’s also very secure because it’s extremely difficult to attack and subvert the entire network supporting Bitcoin. It’s a strength in numbers defense.” -Mark Pesce before the Australian Senate Economics References Committee Hearings on Digital Currency
When the network achieves consensus on the validity of a transaction, it’s added to the BlockChain of all Bitcoins. When you add a transaction to the BlockChain, essentially writing it to the record, it effectively authorizes the transaction.
Bitcoin transactions are not instantaneous, it takes a few minutes for the peer network to arrive at consensus. But the consensus, once you’ve got it, is authoritative because the entire network is vouching for a transactions authenticity. It’s also very secure because it’s extremely difficult to attack and subvert the entire network supporting Bitcoin. It’s a strength in numbers defense.” -Mark Pesce before the Australian Senate Economics References Committee Hearings on Digital Currency
Whilst we are fighting each other, the competitors are gaining ground. I like your suggestion a lot, but it's going to take a lot of time to reach consensus, if we take that route. We need something where decisions can be made very quickly, to adapt to problems that might need urgent attention.
This in-fighting is causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin and the rate at which it would have grown, if everyone just concentrated on the same thing. Now we see two groups fighting for changes to make core developers rich and famous.
This in-fighting is causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin and the rate at which it would have grown, if everyone just concentrated on the same thing. Now we see two groups fighting for changes to make core developers rich and famous.
It's refreshing to see an intelligent systematic approach to this. It is most welcome.
You're a prodigy. So am I. This is how consensus is built and decisions are made through a system that embraces consensus.
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
I think we should come up with a proposal as to a CLEAR PROCESS on how to arrive at consensus and have everybody in the community sign the patition and then send it to the Developers as a message from the BITCOIN COMMUNITY how we wish to proceed and how we want our voices to be heard.
You're a prodigy. So am I. This is how consensus is built and decisions are made through a system that embraces consensus.
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
Unfortunately we're all realizing that this is not that system. It's not as iff many of us are against a change, we just want to believe that a consensus has been built. Instead it's a lot of private discussions, YouTube interviews on what's been decided, and the rest of us debating and pining for more information on the Forum here.
What have we learned? That every system is subject to power struggles...maybe the big bad banks and the big bad government and the big bad corporations aren't that different from us.
If they are, we should start to show it...
Bitcoin is itself a new technology we have at our disposal, and it's main function is as a decentralized method for arriving at consensus. Namely, consensus on valid blocks in the block chain. We can use this new technology to arrive at consensus on literally anything, and so it only makes sense that we use it to arrive at consensus on the BlockSize debate.
What we need is to define a CLEAR PROCESS by which this is done, as it will need to be done again and again in the future. Perhaps the first part of this CLEAR PROCESS that needs to be defined is what we define as Consensus? Is it 75%? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%?
We can model this process after the following:
Step One:
The issue to be decided is whether or not, and how to increase the block size. Relevant information might include the fact that there is no deep philosophical or technical reason for the current limit. Satoshi implemented the current limit as a temporary anti-spam measure under the assumption that the limit would need to be raised eventually.
With the current block size limit the Bitcoin network can only sustain less than around 260,000 transactions per day. If we look at the trend in increase of transaction volume we can project that we will run out of capacity as early as Fall 2016.
The solutions to this problem include increasing the block size now before this capacity limit is reached, waiting until we reach the limit to increase the block size, or never increasing the block size and relying on "payment channel" solutions such as Lightening Network and BlockStream.
Gavin Andreson's BIP101 essentially acted as our Step One, introducing the problem to be solved to the community at large and presenting a single possible solution that serves as the catalyst to jump start the debate, ultimately leading to a consensus conclusion. (probably not XT)
Step Two:
Proposed Solutions to this problem include:
BIP 100
Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB.
BIP 101
Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years.
BIP 102
Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015.
BIP 103
Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063.
And also of course no increase and relying solely on "payment channel" solutions.
Step Three:
Emerging proposals seem to be a compromise between the Pr0-XT camp and the Anti-XT camp. Such a compromise likely consists of simply increasing the block size via Bitcoin Core, avoiding all of the "extra features" that come with XT but satisfying the palpable call for increased block size.
Step Four:
We are currently in-between the Step Two and STep Three Stages, perhaps coming close to Step Four soon, in which the emerging proposals are being refined and amended.
Step Five:
In step five we should test for agreement. For example, BIP101 on Core which is to Increase the Blocksize to 8 MB and double it every two years. To find out if we have agreement we will put the proposal to the community.
If someone has a BLOCK against the proposal they are stating that they have a fundamental disagreement with this proposal which needs to be resolved. BLOCK's should be taken very seriously and also should be made with caution. A legitimate BLOCK against the proposal should stop it from being implemented. All BLOCK's should be listed and hashed out among the community so that amendments can be made to the proposal that address the issues raised in the BLOCKs.
A STAND ASIDE is a person who does not support the proposal entirely but who does not want to hinder a consensus decision and so does not stand in the way of it's supporters. STAND ASIDEs realize the harm in splitting the community is greater than the harm of the implementation of the proposal they disagree with.
RESERVATIONS are when a person supports the proposal but has some RESERVATIONS he is concerned with, but acknowledges these are minimal enough to let the proposition pass.
An AGREEMENT is when a person supports the proposal and is willing to implement it.
CONSENSUS is reached when we have virtually zero blocks, not too many stand asides and reservations, and active agreement at or around the agreed upon consensus level, such as 90%.
We can do step five on the block chain by voting for the proposal with hash power as adamstgBit has proposed here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralized-decision-making-hashing-toward-a-better-bitcoin-1160035
Step Six:
Once we have the proposal, all that is left is to implement it.
The beauty of this method is that theoretically we do not have winners vs losers, or teams doing battle, or a war on our hands. We are working together to reach the best solution that we all agree on. We do not have 75% losers and 25% losers who threaten to do the worst thing possible and split bitcoin into two competing chains, instead we have a near 100% consensus that is a compromise between competing solutions and is agreed upon by all to be the best possible solution.
This is how we solve the current debate, and also all future debates that are sure to come.
What we need is to define a CLEAR PROCESS by which this is done, as it will need to be done again and again in the future. Perhaps the first part of this CLEAR PROCESS that needs to be defined is what we define as Consensus? Is it 75%? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%?
We can model this process after the following:
Step One:
Quote
Stonewalling size increase changes is just as much as a Ben Bernanke/FOMC move as increasing the hard limit by hard fork. — Jeff Garzik, Developer
The issue to be decided is whether or not, and how to increase the block size. Relevant information might include the fact that there is no deep philosophical or technical reason for the current limit. Satoshi implemented the current limit as a temporary anti-spam measure under the assumption that the limit would need to be raised eventually.
With the current block size limit the Bitcoin network can only sustain less than around 260,000 transactions per day. If we look at the trend in increase of transaction volume we can project that we will run out of capacity as early as Fall 2016.
The solutions to this problem include increasing the block size now before this capacity limit is reached, waiting until we reach the limit to increase the block size, or never increasing the block size and relying on "payment channel" solutions such as Lightening Network and BlockStream.
Gavin Andreson's BIP101 essentially acted as our Step One, introducing the problem to be solved to the community at large and presenting a single possible solution that serves as the catalyst to jump start the debate, ultimately leading to a consensus conclusion. (probably not XT)
Step Two:
Proposed Solutions to this problem include:
BIP 100
Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB.
BIP 101
Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years.
BIP 102
Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015.
BIP 103
Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063.
And also of course no increase and relying solely on "payment channel" solutions.
Quote
"If [the niche of digital gold] is what Bitcoin users want, then they should keep the limit, and perhaps even decrease it. But if Bitcoin users want to be a payment system, then up it must go." - Vitalik Buterin
Step Three:
Emerging proposals seem to be a compromise between the Pr0-XT camp and the Anti-XT camp. Such a compromise likely consists of simply increasing the block size via Bitcoin Core, avoiding all of the "extra features" that come with XT but satisfying the palpable call for increased block size.
Step Four:
We are currently in-between the Step Two and STep Three Stages, perhaps coming close to Step Four soon, in which the emerging proposals are being refined and amended.
Step Five:
In step five we should test for agreement. For example, BIP101 on Core which is to Increase the Blocksize to 8 MB and double it every two years. To find out if we have agreement we will put the proposal to the community.
If someone has a BLOCK against the proposal they are stating that they have a fundamental disagreement with this proposal which needs to be resolved. BLOCK's should be taken very seriously and also should be made with caution. A legitimate BLOCK against the proposal should stop it from being implemented. All BLOCK's should be listed and hashed out among the community so that amendments can be made to the proposal that address the issues raised in the BLOCKs.
A STAND ASIDE is a person who does not support the proposal entirely but who does not want to hinder a consensus decision and so does not stand in the way of it's supporters. STAND ASIDEs realize the harm in splitting the community is greater than the harm of the implementation of the proposal they disagree with.
RESERVATIONS are when a person supports the proposal but has some RESERVATIONS he is concerned with, but acknowledges these are minimal enough to let the proposition pass.
An AGREEMENT is when a person supports the proposal and is willing to implement it.
CONSENSUS is reached when we have virtually zero blocks, not too many stand asides and reservations, and active agreement at or around the agreed upon consensus level, such as 90%.
We can do step five on the block chain by voting for the proposal with hash power as adamstgBit has proposed here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralized-decision-making-hashing-toward-a-better-bitcoin-1160035
Step Six:
Once we have the proposal, all that is left is to implement it.
The beauty of this method is that theoretically we do not have winners vs losers, or teams doing battle, or a war on our hands. We are working together to reach the best solution that we all agree on. We do not have 75% losers and 25% losers who threaten to do the worst thing possible and split bitcoin into two competing chains, instead we have a near 100% consensus that is a compromise between competing solutions and is agreed upon by all to be the best possible solution.
This is how we solve the current debate, and also all future debates that are sure to come.
Jump to: