Quote from: pennywise on October 14, 2016, 01:52:51 PM

Quote from: franky1 on October 13, 2016, 09:37:16 PM

ill say it one more time CONSENSUS should never be baited and switched to dictatorship. otherwise bitcoin is no better than fiat

Let's debate, among WHO should a consensus be reached.

If I understand you correctly, you say among EVERYONE, where each individual has an equal voting right. With that, I disagree. Consensus should be reached among economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Should individuals, having a bigger economic impact, have a bigger say? By all means, yes. --> this is not a democracy. It's anarcho-capitalism. (which Satoshi, being a crypto-anarchist, was close to in thinking).

Does that mean, only one version of bitcoin software? No. Always more versions, but the fact remains, that for the system to work, one software needs to prevail, and heavily.

This is how I think the system was set up: The miners choose the firmware, that best represents the interests of the economic majority. If miners would choose the firmware that represents the choice of equal weighted bitcoin user voices, that would be a democracy. And that would be BAD.

Should the body of bitcoin core decision makers be unified and only one software allowed? Hell NO. Centralization represents everythig, the bicoin is against!

one software doesnt need to prevail and decisions should not be based on the economic majority.
lets explain:
economic majority.
day one coinbase has NO coins. day two 500,000 people deposit 1btc each into coinbase.
day 3. the people have no vote. coinbase has a vote to a total of 500,000 out of ~16m right now (3.1%)

is it fair that a corporation has 3.1% and each customer does not even have 0.00000625% each, but instead no vote at all. due to coinbase having the funds under coinbase keys?? so coinbase does the deciding

having more money is meaningless. the amount of funds someone has, has no relevance to the diversity, distribution and security of the blockchain.
eg satishi himself has over 800k bitcoins. yet he runs no nodes, no miners and has no impact on bitcoins security right now. he has not been involved since before 2011. emphasis: he has no impact on protecting bitcoin as it stands now.

P.S: dont get me wrong if it was based on economics i would have more votes then many people. but that does not mean its a fair excuse to change security, diversity, distribution. because funds does not secure bitcoin.. nodes and mining does.

consensus compromise
todays proposed consensus.
   core wants 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit
   BU wants variable base 16 critical limit
   XT wants 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wants 2mb base. 32 critical limit

while no majority is established they can all run at the same time because the current 1mb rule fits all proposals because under 1mb data is accepted by them all.
none of these proposals are a controversial fork, all proposals are consensual.

they all want something to change. so its not about killing off all proposals and then have one king. its about compromise by coming to a consensus.
EG BEFORE december 2015 it was
   core wanted 1mb base 32 critical limit
   BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
   XT wanted 8mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 8mb base. 32 critical limit

EG AFTER december 2015 it was
   core wanted 2m base 32 critical limit
   BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
   XT wanted 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 2mb base. 32 critical limit

and the compromise was 2mb base. where IF everyone actually coded this compromise everyone would be on the same level, and there would be majority acceptance of 2mb with no disruption once the majority of nodes upgraded to their favourite brand of that consensus

we thought core would after agreeing to this, would finally write an implementation so that the 2mb can go into affect.
but then they decided to throw a spanner in the works.

instead of segwit 2mb base 4mb weight to stick to consensus while also offering segwit. they back tracked to 1mb again
with
   core wanting 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

which core now wants to become a dictatorship by killing off the other implementations so they dont have to compromise and dont have to uphold their initial agreement.

which is lame because they pretend in a year or so to "maybe" implement: 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit, but they want to kill off the competition that is holding up their: 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

the even funnier part is.
users, nodes, merchants, miners never had a single say via economics or node count that 1m base 4mb weight is the desire in 2015.
instead they went on a R3KT campaign to make sheep jump into the wolves mouths by prtending the wolves were in the other direction. (ye core devs are funded by R3 too)

in short all core need to do is make 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit and then ALL implementations have what they want and core also gets segwit. with no dictatorship.

due to consensual compromise