summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/d7/1e5848a145707e1095e8f124ff2545119451f0
blob: cd90932e9c59578fa1ec5ae47195a4e22ea78740 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
Return-Path: <jp@eeqj.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0489AAC2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  1 Jul 2015 08:54:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE21C12C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  1 Jul 2015 08:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wguu7 with SMTP id u7so30544051wgu.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references
	:to; bh=9XlkW0IkUsGwqeTCkT9xFfbNBvtsLL1GpglGCiRLfOA=;
	b=HT0HgL8OJ2nRghXjPZlNQz5GB3a935pd5XQitCe5GsFr1oaNCIFa46KE80g+pWF5an
	VteEbPK99alPrYMFVk+xUk0YZFVDiXxl2VQ93duqXRBbpj53mL+9jwoQy0EkxP5ZO4di
	c7uyF2VxFHY14CDkK/wauyUysBR6uZVDN6l5gCz9UzGahJzdCP4fYmWkP85tNjjIXDcZ
	qD0YQ71GvNbYEIpv1Yp1act+8+Ux90EuwwmUrbnQmJCT+whg8wDBqUnM7Hq+aCupNs27
	MK7vPGHih0ppY9uj1W0fLXzkxevALqxR60U6hryObuowM9NNqF4OFhDcey4tS4G8fkiJ
	nS+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIeGI1Uhgnq3KDAGrIU0CML3MSlOn8qDGlOvjaUxI4qIxS/F4iRpPpxGXbqMRcVtis1beu
X-Received: by 10.180.228.6 with SMTP id se6mr40605456wic.33.1435740853404;
	Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.254.105]
	(dslb-088-074-068-040.088.074.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [88.74.68.40])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	ck18sm1786178wjb.47.2015.07.01.01.54.11
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeffrey Paul <jp@eeqj.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <20150701084512.5924041A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:54:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E6FD4C9-7586-4756-8456-218B9E44B559@eeqj.com>
References: <20150701084512.5924041A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin governance
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:54:16 -0000

If people attempt to govern Bitcoin, Bitcoin falls apart.

That's why there is no voting and there are no unnecessary hard forks; Bitco=
in operates on consensus.

Engineering and research along these lines is folly, as any attempt to impos=
e such concepts as "voting" will rightfully find itself with nothing to gove=
rn.

It is a common misconception that the core devs govern Bitcoin; indeed they a=
re the core devs only because they do not try to govern. I urge you to revie=
w the history of the term "unix" for an instructive example of what happens i=
n systems that do not depend on consensus.=20

And now back to regularly scheduled development, I hope.

Best,
-jp

PS: A personal request to the list: could we please limit ourselves to posti=
ng about the research and development of Bitcoin Core? Many of us must stay c=
ontinually abreast of all progress on Bitcoin Core by reading all of -dev da=
ily and subjecting everyone's email inboxes to hundreds of pet theories abou=
t governance and block size opinions without patches or simulations is simpl=
y abusing the list membership to soapbox. I encourage you to make blog posts=
 instead and post them to /r/Bitcoin or suchlike versus taking up attention s=
pan on an *engineering* mailing list.

--=20
Jeffrey Paul   +1 (312) 361-0355
5539 AD00 DE4C 42F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2

> On 01.07.2015, at 10:45, NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
>=20
> (sorry for the long post, I tried)
>=20
> I've been thinking about how we could build an effective Bitcoin governanc=
e, but couldn't come up with anything remotely plausible.
>=20
> It seems we might go a different way, though, with Core and XT continue co=
-existing in parallel, mostly in a compatible state, out of the need that "t=
here can be only one".
>=20
> Both having the same technical protocol, but different people, structure, p=
rocesses and political standing; serving as a kind of two-party system and k=
eeping each other in check.
>=20
> Their respective power will be determined by the number of Core vs XT node=
s running and people/businesses on board. They will have to negotiate any si=
gnificant change at the risk of yet another full fork.
>=20
> And occasionally the full forks will still happen and the minority will ha=
ve to concede and change their protocol to match the winning side.
>=20
> Can there be any other way? Can you really control a decentralized system w=
ith a centralized governance, like Core Devs or TBF?
>=20
> ----
>=20
> In this view, what's happening is a step _towards_ decentralization, not a=
way from it. It proves that Bitcoin is indeed a decentralized system and tha=
t minority cannot impose its will.
>=20
> For the sides to agree now would actually be a bad thing, because that wou=
ld mean kicking the governance problem down the road.
>=20
> And we _need_ to go through this painful split at least once. The block si=
ze issue is perfect: controversial enough to push the split, but not controv=
ersial enough so one side couldn't win.
>=20
> ----
>=20
> If this is where we're heading then both sides should probably start think=
ing of themselves as opposition parties, instead of whatever they think of t=
hemselves now.
>=20
> People and businesses ultimately decide and they need a way to cast a Yes/=
No vote on proposed changes. Hence the two-party system.
>=20
> If the split in power is, say, 60/40 and the leading party introduces an u=
npopular change, it can quickly lose its advantage.
>=20
> We already have the "democratic party" on the left with Gavin and Mike rep=
resenting the wish of the majority and the "conservative party" on the right=
, who would prefer things to stay the way they are.
>=20
> ----
>=20
> Finally, I propose to improve the voting mechanism of Bitcoin to serve thi=
s new reality better.
>=20
> Using the upcoming fork as an opportunity, we could add something like 8-b=
yte votes into blocks:
>=20
> * first 4 bytes: fork/party ID, like 'CORE' or 'XT'
> * second 4 bytes: proposition number
>=20
> (or at least add the ID somewhere so the parties wouldn't have to negotiat=
e block version numbers).=20
>=20
>=20
> Miners are in the business of mining coins, so they are good "sensors" of w=
here the economic majority will be.
>=20
> We will have a representative democracy, with miners serving as 'hubs', co=
llecting all the noise and chatter and casting it into a vote.
>=20
> This is not perfect, but nothing ever is.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev