Quote from: Kakmakr on September 08, 2015, 06:45:42 AM

The more complex the Decentralized Consensus Decision Making Process is, the longer it will take to implement and accept a Bip. We cannot even reach a consensus with the small amount of role-players we have now. I agree that we need a more open and transparent process though.

Most people do not understand the process and where it all originated with Satoshi and Gavin being the benevolent dictators for a while.

its relatively simple

miners, investors, and large bitcoin entities all vote & discuss (like they are doing now for blocksize) so that devs look at these vote & discussions and make a good decision, one which satisfies mostly everyone. hopefully, this process makes devs not so focused on getting their idea implemented, but rather editing, adding to there BIP, trying to get more votes.

Quote from: kalooki on September 08, 2015, 11:44:03 AM

I think before people start using the word "consensus" they should actually read the one use of that word in the whitepaper.

Consensus is not a thing you achieve before a change, it is a thing that happens after a change.

The BitcoinXT thing is a perfect example of consensus as envisioned in the whitepaper. Someone builds a new version of Bitcoin and puts it out there. The users and miners of Bitcoin vote with their feet (ie: processing power) and reject it, and we move on.

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

The pussyfooting around we've had for the last 4 years with these network-breaking softforks is not what should be happening - i.e". make a change but hack it so we don't hardfork". There should be regular hardforks and the users (merchants, miners, PSPs) of Bitcoin should be set up to work around them. The lack of them makes the network weaker, not stronger.

Now we have experienced Bitcoiners literally and figuratively (and proudly!) sitting on their hands until the core devs utter their next commandment. And woe betide anyone else who drops a new version of core in the meantime.

I am convinced that the consensus concept is broken and misunderstood by the community. I think people are afraid of forks because they fear it will damage the public perception and price. I think that the lack of progress in the technology is damaging adoption WAY more.

Just my 0.02c

people are afraid of forks, and rightfully so, had bitcoinXt gained a significant % of nodes there may be an full on "war" going on

One of the core principles behind bitcoin is that nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it and the longest chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin. By making it easier for everyone to express their acceptance of a potential change, we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus and roll out changes according to the original design of Bitcoin, while limiting potential forks created when changes are implemented without knowing whether or not the changes will be accepted by the network.

Quote

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

just the act of forking bitcoin because a dev thinks he knows better turns everyone off to his idea. no one will use it simply because they don't want to support forking bitcoin.

its better to have everyone vote first, then at one point devs "Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it." obviously they won't choose to implement a BIP with low approval during voting... and they don't necessarily have to wait for the whole network to be 90% voting on one idea. voting is a tool for devs to see how easily a change will be accepted before "Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it."