Pages:
Author

Topic: Voting for block size increase proposals (Read 6173 times)

member
Activity: 140
Merit: 10
Decentralized Block-chain Voting
September 24, 2015, 01:38:22 PM
#50
Sorry if this was asked but I missed it or if its somehow obvious and I just dont get it, but what is keeping me from

#1 vote
#2 send coins to newly generated address
#3 vote again
#4 goto #1

Vote weight is calculated proportional to current balance of the address associated with the vote. So if you move your coins the vote will be revoked.


TechCrunch published an article a couple of days expanding on the CryptoVoter voting proposal.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-solution-to-bitcoins-governance-problem/
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
September 20, 2015, 08:33:38 AM
#49
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 16, 2015, 02:27:04 PM
#48
i voted devs, and then i have no option to choose what i think

altho i think devs should ultimately decide on protocol changes, i do think they should consider Holders opinions.
Certainly devs will technically implement one or another solution. I think that decision will be legitimate if a majority of holders choose the same decision or delegate their votes to the developers.

it would be nice if voting devs didn't lock me out of expressing my BIP preferences
Ok, If nobody objects. I have disabled the lock.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 16, 2015, 01:16:53 PM
#47
voted with 0.03BTC   Cheesy

cool beans

Quote
Who should decide how the bitcoin protocol will be changed?
i voted devs, and then i have no option to choose what i think

altho i think devs should ultimately decide on protocol changes, i do think they should consider Holders opinions.

it would be nice if voting devs didn't lock me out of expressing my BIP preferences
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 16, 2015, 12:46:48 PM
#46
Thanks, I got it now. I got confused because your interface at coinarchy.com doesn't allow copy/pasting the signed text without clicking some buttons first.  Grin
I hope many people vote: even if the decision isn't necessarily decided straight from the poll, that would at least help to have an overview of what the community prefers.
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 16, 2015, 09:19:02 AM
#45
Don't know if it's because I'm particularly clueless, but where should that signed message be posted? I see there are already some results so there must be a way, only it seems well hidden....
I plan to add an option to dump the votes so anyone can verify them. But currently it's not a priority, because only a few people wished to vote. I think that to the end of the year there will be more people who want to take part in voting. Now I am working at creating the system of voting with cold wallets without getting the private keys.

Temporarily you can find signatures here: http://coinarchy.com/results
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 16, 2015, 08:22:07 AM
#44
I suggest the following message syntax for voting anywhere in the internet for any BIP published on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

The syntax is:
Code:
#BITCOINVOTE {vote version} {bitcoin address} {+|-|=}{BIP id} {+|-|=}{BIP id} ...
{signature}

For example:
Code:
#BITCOINVOTE 201508251200 12WRTDrnLy7FMHj8b4kNWPJgnDfseTK6cX =BIP100 +BIP101 -BIP102
H1TmFhlXT8vPnbWsLWDPs2qbWRWA1htZIuCd/Avts/OzaVsWfWcIzfOCqO9w/FmnQEkjve8UU4kZtEtoIN1CpEg=

[...]
Current results

BIP101  +2600.00 / -122.87
BIP100  +22.87 / -0.00
BIP102  +0.00 / -121.00
BIP103  +0.00 / -121.00
BIP106  +0.00 / -2600.00
Don't know if it's because I'm particularly clueless, but where should that signed message be posted? I see there are already some results so there must be a way, only it seems well hidden....
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1011
September 11, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
#43
Sorry if this was asked but I missed it or if its somehow obvious and I just dont get it, but what is keeping me from

#1 vote
#2 send coins to newly generated address
#3 vote again
#4 goto #1

Vote weight is calculated proportional to current balance of the address associated with the vote. So if you move your coins the vote will be revoked.
jr. member
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
September 11, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
#42
Bitcoin is a mathematical money system and voting isn't the way mathematicians achieve consensus.

There must be a better way to do this, like figuring out the definition of Bitcoin first and then seeing what proposals fit the idea of Bitcoin moving forward better than others.
Who are mathematicians? Why do you think they should decide which of proposals fit the idea?
Without a vote how do you know there is consensus achieved?

Mathematicians are the ones who dig for the truth.
Once they reach that layer, they simply know they are there.
Theoretically you can achieve consensus all on your own.
But the challenge then becomes to let others see it as well.

I'm not saying that Bitcoin can't step out of its way as a result of popular vote.
It sure can, but the true path of the original Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
September 11, 2015, 01:58:06 PM
#41
Sorry if this was asked but I missed it or if its somehow obvious and I just dont get it, but what is keeping me from

#1 vote
#2 send coins to newly generated address
#3 vote again
#4 goto #1
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 11, 2015, 01:43:51 PM
#40
Bitcoin is a mathematical money system and voting isn't the way mathematicians achieve consensus.

There must be a better way to do this, like figuring out the definition of Bitcoin first and then seeing what proposals fit the idea of Bitcoin moving forward better than others.
Who are mathematicians? Why do you think they should decide which of proposals fit the idea?
Without a vote how do you know there is consensus achieved?
jr. member
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
September 11, 2015, 09:59:47 AM
#39
There are several proposals for optimizing Bitcoin's scalability:

BIP100 - Periodically change the limit based on block size vote by miners
BIP101 - Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years
BIP102 - Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015
BIP103 - Block size according to technological growth
BIP105 - Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
BIP106 - Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
BIP8MB - Increase to 8 MB
BIPRosenfeld - Elastic block cap with rollover penalties

...


Bitcoin is a mathematical money system and voting isn't the way mathematicians achieve consensus.

There must be a better way to do this, like figuring out the definition of Bitcoin first and then seeing what proposals fit the idea of Bitcoin moving forward better than others.

The fact that 8MB option stands out (in the OP) by not having a link to the BIP (truth doesn't need a BIP) hints us at the correct solution. Smiley
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 11, 2015, 03:14:07 AM
#38
Another problem is that someone has to brute-force all hashes that correspond to a vote
It's not a problem. There are 1024+5 possible addresses.

Don't do it this way; this just unnecessarily increases the UTXO size. It is better to send 0 BTC to an OP_RETURN output. Although this is not supported by most clients, it doesn't spam the UTXO set
Good point. We must take into account all votes attached to the transactions with OP_RETURN. It would be nice to make a tool for creating such transactions.

BTW, I'm trying to provide an option to vote in a familiar way. It would be very useful to send coins in order to vote. And I guess the problem with spamming the UTXO can be solved otherwise. But first, we need to make a tool for voting with OP_RETURN and to come up with a solution for counting votes of holders with cold wallets.

Also you need some filtering logic to prevent people from voting twice with the same bitcoins
Logic is simple. Vote weight is calculated proportional to current balance of the address associated with the vote. So if you move your coins the vote will be revoked.

Updated
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
full member
Activity: 217
Merit: 259
September 04, 2015, 10:05:31 AM
#36
Anonymous voting

Alternatively you can vote by sending 0.00000001 BTC to a special Bitcoin Address*. In that case the transaction must have no more than two outputs: one to address for voting, and one back to your initial address (known as change). Weight of the vote will be calculated proportional to this "change".

Don't do it this way; this just unnecessarily increases the UTXO size.  It is better to send 0 BTC to an OP_RETURN output.  Although this is not supported by most clients, it doesn't spam the UTXO set.  BTW, you cannot send 1 satoshi.  Most bitcoin nodes won't relay your transaction because it has a dust output, and even if it gets to the miners, it will probably not be accepted.  Another problem is that someone has to brute-force all hashes that correspond to a vote, because it is otherwise not possible to see if a hash is a vote and for which BIPs it votes.

Another question is, if the votes should be send to the blockchain at all, where they are stored forever.  Also you need some filtering logic to prevent people from voting twice with the same bitcoins.
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 04, 2015, 08:53:40 AM
#35
Note that I could make as many addresses for myself as I like
In that case most convinient way is to specify an email address and total number of your bitcoins.
member
Activity: 167
Merit: 10
September 04, 2015, 08:34:25 AM
#34
What about BIP000?
There is an option "-BIGBLOCK" to vote against all block size increase proposals (has been added to my previous post)

Why?  I thought you were trying to do a proof of stake vote?
That's for paranoids. Just another way to prove that you are holder of an address' private key.
The advantage is that information is transferred through native bitcoin p2p protocol and votes are stored in the blockchain. But in that way anonymity is achieved at the cost of paying miner fees.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
September 03, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
#33
Oh, and here's a coin-vote on which proposal you like, or add others:

http://coin-vote.com/poll/55e8a33299baadff0a34acb7

Thanks to OP for suggesting the wording. 
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
September 03, 2015, 02:34:57 PM
#32
Anonymous voting

Alternatively you can vote by sending 0.00000001 BTC to a special Bitcoin Address*. In that case the transaction must have no more than two outputs: one to address for voting, and one back to your initial address (known as change). Weight of the vote will be calculated proportional to this "change".

Bitcoin address for voting must be created in according to the following rules:
1 - Perform RIPEMD-160 hashing on the vote message
2 - Add version byte (0x00) in front of RIPEMD-160 hash
3 - Perform SHA-256 hash on the extended RIPEMD-160 result
4 - Perform SHA-256 hash on the result of the previous SHA-256 hash
5 - Take the first 4 bytes of the second SHA-256 hash. This is the address checksum
6 - Add the 4 checksum bytes from stage 5 at the end of extended RIPEMD-160 hash from stage 2. This is the 25-byte binary Bitcoin Address
7 - Convert the result from a byte string into a base58 string using Base58Check encoding. This is the most commonly used Bitcoin Address format

vote message syntax:
Code:
#BITCOINVOTE {+|-}{BIP id} -{BIP id} -{BIP id} ...

where

- available BIP identifiers are: BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103, BIP8MB, BIPCBBSRA, BIPRosenfeld, BIPUpal
- only first BIP may begin with '+'
- BIPs starting with '-' must be listed in alphabetical order
- all BIPs must be separated by single spaces

for example:

message = "#BITCOINVOTE +BIP8MB -BIP101 -BIP102 -BIP103 -BIPCBBSRA"
step1 - 1fb5a90f8f7eff851c32c498961a98f9d2b60417
step2 - 001fb5a90f8f7eff851c32c498961a98f9d2b60417
step3 - 6c2fddb0647247f2e2c97f17c87ebcf88fe82f4579e6cd9cc1f1077e4ba66d22
step4 - ec840e1f7122bfb89387675ebb1e9b1b6364a920bc44fbe982bd099a09deda69
step5 - ec840e1f
step6 - 001fb5a90f8f7eff851c32c498961a98f9d2b60417ec840e1f
step7 - 13tfZw4qS2SXeoLwxWPtQmcGD9st22g9VY

In this way the address for this message is 13tfZw4qS2SXeoLwxWPtQmcGD9st22g9VY

Address for message "#BITCOINVOTE -BIP101 -BIP103 -BIP8MB" is 1PeR4ZrioU6hNVofUyPijeJgWbmWbzdYLN

If you would like to vote for BIP101, but against BIP100 send 1 satoshi from all your addresses to 1LK5hwGUCZoYtU5tysU5EJr2dyWBUyM5hB

and so on

___
*Note that no one has the private keys for those addresses, therefore this satoshi will be lost forever

For the record, I have no idea what you are trying to do here.

Sending one satoshi "from all your addresses" to a burn address ?  Note that I could make as many addresses for myself as I like. 

Why?  I thought you were trying to do a proof of stake vote?  One can simply sign with their private key; what you suggest requires getting the private key out of cold storage anyway to move the 1 sat.   

The mechanics of a coin-vote are self explanatory if you give them some thought, and we have created a platform so you can do exactly that.  Please take a look at our FAQ:

http://faq.coin-vote.com/

and read the white paper here:

http://frass.woodcoin.org/introducing-coin-vote/ 

Such a vote could be decentralized, but there seems little reason to do so.  All votes are public.  No money ever changes hands.  There's no way for the centralized counter (database administrator) to alter the tally --  every voter can verify his/her vote is on the list at any time and the tally is public.   

       
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
September 03, 2015, 02:15:41 PM
#31
What about BIP000?   

http://www.cryptomashup.com/2015/09/bitcoin-i-support-bip000/

It appears to be the default, but if counting votes -- it should still be an option. 
Pages:
Jump to: