I guess the biggest problem is that we cannot confirm individuals to only vote once. Everybody can literally make millions of wallets to vote.
By having the miners decide, we become even more centralized, as for the general bitcoiner, it is impossible to get enough hash to make his vote count, and we still have only a handful of people voting.
Topic: There Must Be A Way We Can All Vote - page 2. (Read 1883 times)
I wonder if Ethereum could be used as a voting mechanism?
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
>75% of miners willing to accept the change simply lets devs know it's safe to implement.
dev's should reach consensus and use miner votes and BTC votes to help them reach consensus, would gavin had created bitcoinXT had he known <1% of miners would support it, while >60% support BIP100. i don't think he would of wasted his time. maybe he would of changed his mind and created a new BIP, but that's too late now, poor gavin cast away, forever?
75% is dangerously low...
wtv thats up to the devs to decide on any given polling
if the poll is between BIP123 or no BIP at all and we get only 75% on BIP123, i agree with you its dangerously low...
if the poll between 6 slightly different BIP 40% might be enough for devs to choose and say they have reached consensus, with ALL devs backing 1 BIP it could go from 40% to 99% pretty fast
would be fun to watch.
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
>75% of miners willing to accept the change simply lets devs know it's safe to implement.
dev's should reach consensus and use miner votes and BTC votes to help them reach consensus, would gavin had created bitcoinXT had he known <1% of miners would support it, while >60% support BIP100. i don't think he would of wasted his time. maybe he would of changed his mind and created a new BIP, but that's too late now, poor gavin cast away, forever?
75% is dangerously low...
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
>75% of miners willing to accept the change simply lets devs know it's safe to implement.
dev's should reach consensus and use miner votes and BTC votes to help them reach consensus, would gavin had created bitcoinXT had he known <1% of miners would support it, while >60% support BIP100. i don't think he would of wasted his time. maybe he would of changed his mind and created a new BIP, but that's too late now, poor gavin cast away, forever?
the problem of not being able to implement "one man, one vote" in a decentralized manner is why we have things like proof of work in Bitcoin.
It's a tough nut to crack.
It's a tough nut to crack.
I find myself agreeing with you on that one! Good comment.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
the problem of not being able to implement "one man, one vote" in a decentralized manner is why we have things like proof of work in Bitcoin.
It's a tough nut to crack.
It's a tough nut to crack.
I'm confused, first you make a thread saying you don't want to democracy but then you turn around and create one arguing that we must find a way to vote?
You're making this more complicated than it really is. Stop trying to "fix" Bitcoin as it is perfectly fine as it is. Achieving consensus should be hard and some "vote theater" is not gonna help it. Just be patient and stop believing the alarmists.
You are erroneously equating democracy with voting. Voting =/= Democracy.
When I say we don't want a democracy, I mean we don't want a majority rule where 51% is all it takes to win and then we have 49% unhappy and disappointed people. This kind of system will rip bitcoin in two.
Instead we should have a Consensus Building Process by which we gradually mold the proposals until we arrive at 95%+ approval. There are several different ways of doing this and this has been done several times in Bitcoin's history already, but all of them involve voting.
The Major difference is that with a Consensus Building Process people need the ability to change their votes, in a democracy you vote once and then that's it, you can't change your mind.
With a Consensus Building Process the proposals are tweaked and amended according to critiques and concerns of the voters until there emerges a proposal that is good enough to reach 75%+ votes. In a democracy the choices are static, and you just vote on the choices presented which do not change, and are often all poor solutions.
In both scenarios there is voting. In one scenario there are winners and losers, and in the other we are all winners.
Votes can be cheated, gamed, bought. I personally don't believe they're a good and transparent way of achieving consensus.
I'm confused, first you make a thread saying you don't want to democracy but then you turn around and create one arguing that we must find a way to vote?
You're making this more complicated than it really is. Stop trying to "fix" Bitcoin as it is perfectly fine as it is. Achieving consensus should be hard and some "vote theater" is not gonna help it. Just be patient and stop believing the alarmists.
You are erroneously equating democracy with voting. Voting =/= Democracy.
When I say we don't want a democracy, I mean we don't want a majority rule where 51% is all it takes to win and then we have 49% unhappy and disappointed people. This kind of system will rip bitcoin in two.
Instead we should have a Consensus Building Process by which we gradually mold the proposals until we arrive at 95%+ approval. There are several different ways of doing this and this has been done several times in Bitcoin's history already, but all of them involve voting.
The Major difference is that with a Consensus Building Process people need the ability to change their votes, in a democracy you vote once and then that's it, you can't change your mind.
With a Consensus Building Process the proposals are tweaked and amended according to critiques and concerns of the voters until there emerges a proposal that is good enough to reach 75%+ votes. In a democracy the choices are static, and you just vote on the choices presented which do not change, and are often all poor solutions.
In both scenarios there is voting. In one scenario there are winners and losers, and in the other we are all winners.
I think the core issue we face is twofold:
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
2) We Need a way for more than just the miners to vote. BIP100 is the perfect example as to why. If the miners are the only ones who have a say, then they can vote in BIP's that appeal to their interests but not necessarily to the interests of the entire community. Having only the miners vote has worked in the past but no longer. Now the miners are a small percentage of the bitcoin community whereas in the past they were a much larger percentage.
I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.
Are there any geniuses out there with any ideas as to how we might do this??
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
2) We Need a way for more than just the miners to vote. BIP100 is the perfect example as to why. If the miners are the only ones who have a say, then they can vote in BIP's that appeal to their interests but not necessarily to the interests of the entire community. Having only the miners vote has worked in the past but no longer. Now the miners are a small percentage of the bitcoin community whereas in the past they were a much larger percentage.
I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.
Are there any geniuses out there with any ideas as to how we might do this??
I'm confused, first you make a thread saying you don't want to democracy but then you turn around and create one arguing that we must find a way to vote?
You're making this more complicated than it really is. Stop trying to "fix" Bitcoin as it is perfectly fine as it is. Achieving consensus should be hard and some "vote theater" is not gonna help it. Just be patient and stop believing the alarmists.
I think the core issue we face is twofold:
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
2) We Need a way for more than just the miners to vote. BIP100 is the perfect example as to why. If the miners are the only ones who have a say, then they can vote in BIP's that appeal to their interests but not necessarily to the interests of the entire community. Having only the miners vote has worked in the past but no longer. Now the miners are a small percentage of the bitcoin community whereas in the past they were a much larger percentage.
I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.
Are there any geniuses out there with any ideas as to how we might do this??
1) We don't have a clear consensus building process. We need to decide if we want 75% consensus within 1000 blocks by the miners followed by 95% consensus within 1000 Blocks, or if we just want 80% consensus within 5000 blocks. We need a clear process.
2) We Need a way for more than just the miners to vote. BIP100 is the perfect example as to why. If the miners are the only ones who have a say, then they can vote in BIP's that appeal to their interests but not necessarily to the interests of the entire community. Having only the miners vote has worked in the past but no longer. Now the miners are a small percentage of the bitcoin community whereas in the past they were a much larger percentage.
I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.
Are there any geniuses out there with any ideas as to how we might do this??
Jump to: