On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Miners can do this unilaterally maybe, if they are a closed group, based
on the 51% rule. But aren't they using full nodes for propagation? In this
sense, anyone can vote by coding.
Miners can do this unilaterally maybe, if they are a closed group, based
on the 51% rule. But aren't they using full nodes for propagation? In this
sense, anyone can vote by coding.
If and when we need to vote, a pair-wise runoff (condorcet method) will
find an option that is championed by a
On 4 August 2015 at 10:03, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
If you want to let a majority decide about economic policy of a currency,
I suggest fiat currencies. They have been using this approach for quite a
while, I hear.
Nearly all the fiat
As now we have some concrete proposals
(https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html),
I think we should wrap up the endless debate with voting by different
stakeholder groups.
-
Candidate proposals
Candidate proposals must be
Bitcoin's consensus rules are a consensus system
What is your definition of consensus? Do you mean 100% agreement?
Without a vote how do you know there is 100% (or whatever percentage)
agreement?
Find a solution that everyone agrees on, or don't.
Who are the everyone?
Pieter Wuille 於
I would like to withdraw my proposal from your self-appointed vote.
If you want to let a majority decide about economic policy of a currency, I
suggest fiat currencies. They have been using this approach for quite a
while, I hear.
Bitcoin's consensus rules are a consensus system, not a
As I mentioned, the candidate proposals must go through usual peer
review process, which includes proper testing, I assume.
Scaling down is always possible with softforks, or miners will simply
produce smaller blocks. BIP100 has a scaling down mechanism but it still
requires miners to vote so
