Topic: Voting for block size increase proposals - page 2. (Read 6173 times)

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:

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
- all letters must be upper case

In addition, the following special messages are acceptable:

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

Vote against all block size increase proposals - 15u8F7EZPaVuRzQyUtMp1TSnvvJo8RGRJL

and so on

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

I'm not sure, but most likely users know their addresses and can see that their votes have been stolen.
Additionally, users have the ability to specify the number of bitcoins stored on various services. If these bitcoins have crucial importance for decision-making then an email notification with a suggestion to vote will be sent to their owners.

Without any doubt. Also we can add the option to search a message and its signature by an address.

I tried to choose short, user-friendly and easy to parse syntax. But we can also combine the results with different statement formats.

Aha,

  I like your interface!  
  You may have seen our offering in the space:  http://coin-vote.com

  There is another service coming on line soon:  cryptovoter.com


  These all have similar ideas in terms of "proof of stake" voting, we should all make it possible to dump the votes so anyone can verify them.  It would be wise of us to choose a precise wording if we wish to combine results.  

  I'm not yet convinced a coin-vote or stake vote will influence the future of bitcoin on this issue, however I am glad to see that we have the option to look at what the biggest coin holders are saying.  

  I expect nothing to come of these votes unless big holders sign some signatures from cold storage, to the tune of 100kBTC in votes or more.


  Cheers --   funkenstein the dwarf

  

Sorry, I misunderstood.


Don't Coinwallet.eu get slightly too many votes then... or am I still misunderstanding?

Carlton Banks, this is a proof-of-stake voting. People signing messages with their addresses with bitcoins. What's the identity you're talking about?

People falsifying their identity in order to subvert the vote.

What kind of manipulation?

That's incredibly prone to manipulation. This sort of thing would be dangerous if it was binding, thankfully not the case.

Only votes with proof-of-stake signature will be taken into account. All signatures will be verified and published here.

I think we should not imposing a minimum turnout threshold. Many people are not sufficiently competent, therefore those who won't take an active part in the poll most likely just have no definite opinion. However we must make voting as much convenient as possible, and anyone who willing to vote should have the abilty to vote anonymously.

Description was taken from here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#BIP_101
Clarification added: will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp, and shall be 8GB after 20 years

Might I suggest:
BIP101 - Continuously raise the limit from 8MB on January 11, 2016 so that the limit is doubled every two years (Bitcoin XT).

"double the limit every two years" makes it sound like the limit will stay at 8MB for two years and then jump suddenly to 16MB.

What makes you think the information collected from the poll will be an accurate reflection of the will of the community?

Yes, this would be the most profitable solution for all. On the whole I want to prevent the split of the community.

Miners role is to prevent double spending, but not to decide whether pull requests should be accepted.

FTFY...

This is the bitcoin way for consensus. Anything else is just speculation.

The catch

Wrong. You can vote.
Just put the pattern into coinbase transaction, recompile code and execute "setgenerate true" in your debug console.
Your vote will be counted when you find block 

Allow me to understand: is it a blockchain fork you want to prevent? (not Core vs XT, but BIP vs BIP?) Your idea is that the miners will have accurate information about the will of the users, and choose that option unanimously?

jonny1000, -ck, hexafraction,
Thank you. A brief descridption of BIP100 has been upated, BIPSIPA has been renamed to BIP103.

People with commit access to the repo don't own the Bitcoin network.

Anyway the final decision will be made by bitcoin holders. If miners will support some nonsense BIP the people who disagree will cease using the system by "voting" for alternative stores of value. The purpose of suggested poll is to opportunely prevent this development.

I see. Apologies for being terse, but your reply sounded like you were talking about a whole other topic. Call it BIP burn.

That's an interesting expansion on the way development works in practice, and I recognise what you're talking about from browsing around on Github. There are frequently forked projects with tiny differences, and it's totally plausible that the differences in these pet projects could end up ported to the main project (or that the tiny fork usurps the original). The more access there is to the code we use everyday, and the more we depend on that, I wonder whether this might become a trend.

There will always be a small set of people or an individual with sole commit access, necessarily so. But as you say, if someone forks that project and finds a significant enough userbase, the status of the previous dev team is being manifestly questioned. Overall, it's a good thing. I think we're all aware that it can be abused as well, particularly with consensus critical p2p networks.

I'm interpreting your statement in a slightly different manner than you may have intended. By modifying my own software, I am contributing to the overall development of the collection of software capable of processing, relaying, or mining transactions, assuming I'm also making it available. Additionally, by sharing it, I'm making it possible for anyone to pick up on those changes and use them on their own copy, or integrate them into a centrally-developed program.

On the other hand, nearly all the software that is USED is developed in a centralized fashion, but that doesn't apply to the overall process itself.