Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

This is about right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42wwfm/rbf_or_crca_instead_of_calling_it_rbf/

 

[Peter R]

I think Erik Voorhees's post yesterday had good intentions. But it's got me wondering: does he think that having more than one implementation/governance body is bad?

I think we need to look at the different implementations as products. The node operators or miners running those implementations are the customers and the dev teams for each need to listen to them. Since a single product can't be all things to all people, it makes sense to have more than one.

Unlimited should be targeted at node operators--especially those who want a stronger voice in shaping the network's consensus rules. The philosophy behind Unlimited is to give "unlimited" choice to their customers, as that is what it believes its customers want. In the future, Unlimited will retain customers by designing software that continues to give them things that they want.

Classic should be targeted at miners and industry. Miners want to be sure that their blocks will be accepted into the Blockchain and so coordination between miners regarding the network's first block size limit increase is more important than between non-mining nodes. Classic offers a simple way for them to do this. In the future, Classic will retain miners by working on efficient block propagation techniques to help miners maximize the profit from their revenue streams.

Core is targeted at Blockstream. Blockstream is their most important customer and so Core is working on changes that will make it easier to implement Blockstream products such as Lightning and Sidechains. They are also lobbying to reduce the cost of segwit data (cheaper by a factor of 4X), to give Blockstream products a competitive advantage.

If we look at it like this, then there is really nothing wrong with Core! The conflict of interest only exists if there are no other products on the market to choose from.

 

[JVWVU]

I am not speaking for Erik but I would not mind having 1 governance body but it would have to be diverse and meaningful. Problem is CORE is not going to work with anyone on Classic or Unlimited - hell they wont work with Garzik and Gavin. IMO Garzik (or someone like him) would have to lead a 1 governance body at this point because he is level headed.

 

[Peter R]

@JVWVU

Would you prefer that over, for example, 3 - 5 implementations and none with greater than 35% node share? Or perhaps the governance body can be independent from the implementations?

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1453918376][/doublepost]New poll at top

 

[JVWVU]

@JVWVU

Would you prefer that over, for example, 3 - 5 implementations and none with greater than 35% node share? Or perhaps the governance body can be independent from the implementations?

I am open to 3-5 as long as it does not cause confusion for the everyday user of Bitcoin, right now if someone on outside looking in Bitcoin imo is a no go for an investor due to issues we are seeing right now.

If we havd 3-5 sets of Devs I would still like 1 person being able to work on all projects because innovation would come from a set but needs to be coordinated with others.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I am open to 3-5 as long as it does not cause confusion for the everyday user of Bitcoin

Everyday users of Bitcoin are not going to run full nodes - businesses and institutions will.

They'll select their node implementation like they select a relational database: MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL, etc.

Compared to things like web servers or database engines, the different implementations will require a higher degree of coordination to make sure they all implement the same protocol, but it's not an impossible software engineering problem.

 

[cypherdoc]

The Federal Reserve opted not to hike interest rates at its January meeting and gave no indication that it was changing course on its rate-hiking path ahead.
[doublepost=1453922103][/doublepost]Apple getting sicker and sicker:

 

[JVWVU]

Everyday users of Bitcoin are not going to run full nodes - businesses and institutions will.

Concur but they also don't want shit like the civil war we are currently in causing them to lose sleep. I know enough to be deadly and right now I am beyond frustrated. If classic comes out and nothing happens, I am going to have to decide if adding more USD to bitcoin is a worthwhile investment.

 

[Zarathustra]

This is about right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42wwfm/rbf_or_crca_instead_of_calling_it_rbf/

This guy is brilliant.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@JVWVU @Peter R I think ultimately there is only one governance body of Bitcoin. This is reflected through having multiple implementations. If we imagine the governance body of Bitcoin to be like a parliament, then the different implementations can be regarded like political parties in this analogy. This is why having only one dominant or viable alternative is so wrong, since it is the equivalent of having a one party system.

We can all have our own internal governance structures, like we have here in Bitcoin Unlimited, but ultimately we do all belong to the same body politic of Bitcoin.

 

[Erdogan]

I think Erik Voorhees's post yesterday had good intentions. But it's got me wondering: does he think that having more than one implementation/governance body is bad?

I think we need to look at the different implementations as products. The node operators or miners running those implementations are the customers and the dev teams for each need to listen to them. Since a single product can't be all things to all people, it makes sense to have more than one.

Unlimited should be targeted at node operators--especially those who want a stronger voice in shaping the network's consensus rules. The philosophy behind Unlimited is to give "unlimited" choice to their customers, as that is what it believes its customers want. In the future, Unlimited will retain customers by designing software that continues to give them things that they want.

Classic should be targeted at miners and industry. Miners want to be sure that their blocks will be accepted into the Blockchain and so coordination between miners regarding the network's first block size limit increase is more important than between non-mining nodes. Classic offers a simple way for them to do this. In the future, Classic will retain miners by working on efficient block propagation techniques to help miners maximize the profit from their revenue streams.

Core is targeted at Blockstream. Blockstream is their most important customer and so Core is working on changes that will make it easier to implement Blockstream products such as Lightning and Sidechains. They are also lobbying to reduce the cost of segwit data (cheaper by a factor of 4X), to give Blockstream products a competitive advantage.

If we look at it like this, then there is really nothing wrong with Core! The conflict of interest only exists if there are no other products on the market to choose from.

In light of the above wisdom, I think it could be good to have a voting infrastructure built into the nodes, for the max blocksize question and other questions that could come up in the future. No democratic process, just a way to express an opinion. The questions are set up by the implementation developers, answers are set by node operators. Make it sufficiently general so other node implementations could use the same infrastructure.

The same principle could also be used by other groups of users: Miners, who obviously can be distinguished by their mining power, and also large bitcoin owners, who can vote with a signature from a bitcoin address. Again, not for democratic purposes, which I think is futile, just for getting out information. The market will ultimately be the ruler. It is too complex and too dynamic to have a strict voting system, only the market can see everything, probably it is too complex to describe accurately.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@Erdogan Its good that you stress that this is just for informational purposes. Since node counts can not be a reliable measurement for any type of democratic purposes. I think proof of work suits this role better. Since node counts can be easily manipulated.

I am still planning to write a critique in a appropriate thread of this concept. But it is good that you bring it up. Since I think this is something that is very important for us to understand.
[doublepost=1453930816,1453930046][/doublepost]I like the new poll, I voted for 75% not because there is anything wrong with forking at 60%. I just thought more people would be happy with a 75% threshold, making it more likely that we will be able to reach consensus in the first place. With the recent statements coming out of china, I am now also more confident that it is a threshold we can reach.

 

[rocks]

@VeritasSapere
Do we still have 60% of mining behind classic. According to this from a few days ago most Chinese miners (including antpool which I thought we had) want a 90% threshold.


The problem is if you set the threshold at 90% classic will likely never activate, and if you set it at 60% classic will also probably not activate since it might lose antpool and others listed above.

Hopefully some of the pools included in this statement are OK with 60%, but if not classic may be stuck...

 

[VeritasSapere]

I believe you Peter R, it could simply also be a case of coming up with the same ideas separately. It is a rather low move from Greg Maxwell if you ask me. On a more positive note:

I think — [I’m] not sure. And I’m not speaking for Bitcoin Core here; I’m speaking for myself here. If it [turns out] that Classic takes off — everybody’s running Classic — and if there’s a hard fork on the road, I think Core would probably need to follow because I think Core won’t risk splitting the whole community. But that’s my personal opinion; I don’t want to say that for every Bitcoin Core developer.

I agree if they get the economy behind them then we might need to follow. That’s not a problem. I personally have no problem with following other opinions. I mean, if people think bigger blocks are good, then Bitcoin goes that way. It’s nothing we can stop.

Jonas Schnelli is one of the more prominent Bitcoin Core developers, here is the full article:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

 

[cypherdoc]

Wow, isn't that /u/Soupernerd the same guy involved in the initial banning problems at r/btc?

 

[solex]

@Olivier Janssens
Welcome to bitco.in/forum, the HQ of BU

 

[lunar]

If we imagine the governance body of Bitcoin to be like a parliament, then the different implementations can be regarded like political parties in this analogy.

The same principle could also be used by other groups of users: Miners, who obviously can be distinguished by their mining power, and also large bitcoin owners, who can vote with a signature from a bitcoin address.

The political parties analogy is one i've used before. I think it's quite relevant here. I'm trying to find out a bit more on the various ways node count voting can be manipulated? Especially becasue I see this process to be very valuable. Would it matter if one group set up 1000 fully functioning nodes especially to vote? This is an economic majority rule anyway?

If there were a unique proof of existence built into each node, combining this with something like consider.it could be used, quite effectively as a checks and balance to the development process. I don't mean binding contract here, just as an informal polling process to keep developers on the right track.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Greg Maxwell on expertise in economics, game theory, etc. (See parent and grandparent post for context). Note magician-like handwave in first paragraph.

 

[albin]

We're obviously mistaken, having neglected the plain fact that Maxwell is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. They're not his opinions, it's the Holy Spirit working through such a humble servant of Bitcoin.