From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org, "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:24:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJqNg9-aYG62OxTz5RJyx+JJkx-kt2odooZWs92f5teZiw@mail.gmail.com>
Strongly disagree with buying "votes", or portraying open standards as a
voting process. Also, this depends on address reuse, so it's fundamentally
flawed in design.
Some way for people to express their support weighed by coins (without
losing/spending them), and possibly weighed by running a full node, might
still be desirable. The most straightforward way to do this is to support
message signatures somehow (ideally without using the same pubkey as
spending), and some [inherently unreliable, but perhaps useful if the
community "colludes" to not-cheat] way to sign with ones' full node.
Note also that the BIP process already has BIP Comments for leaving textual
opinions on the BIP unrelated to stake. See BIP 2 for details on that.
Luke
On Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:39:51 PM t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Please comment on this work-in-progress BIP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - t.k.
>
> ----------------------
> BIP: ?
> Layer: Process
> Title: Community Consensus Voting System
> Author: t.khan <teekhan42@gmail•com>
> Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
> Comments-URI: TBD
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Created: 2017-02-02
> License: BSD-2
> Voting Address: 3CoFA3JiK5wxe9ze2HoDGDTmZvkE5Uuwh8 (just an example, don’t
> send to this!)
>
> Abstract
> Community Consensus Voting System (CCVS) will allow developers to measure
> support for BIPs prior to implementation.
>
> Motivation
> We currently have no way of measuring consensus for potential changes to
> the Bitcoin protocol. This is especially problematic for controversial
> changes such as the max block size limit. As a result, we have many
> proposed solutions but no clear direction.
>
> Also, due to our lack of ability to measure consensus, there is a general
> feeling among many in the community that developers aren’t listening to
> their concerns. This is a valid complaint, as it’s not possible to listen
> to thousands of voices all shouting different things in a crowded
> room—basically the situation in the Bitcoin community today.
>
> The CCVS will allow the general public, miners, companies using Bitcoin,
> and developers to vote for their preferred BIP in a way that’s public and
> relatively difficult (expensive) to manipulate.
>
> Specification
> Each competing BIP will be assigned a unique bitcoin address which is added
> to each header. Anyone who wanted to vote would cast their ballot by
> sending a small amount (0.0001 btc) to their preferred BIP's address. Each
> transaction counts as 1 vote.
>
> Confirmed Vote Multiplier:
> Mining Pools, companies using Bitcoin, and Core maintainers/contributors
> are allowed one confirmed vote each. A confirmed vote is worth 10,000x a
> regular vote.
>
> For example:
>
> Slush Pool casts a vote for their preferred BIP and then states publicly
> (on their blog) their vote and the transaction ID and emails the URL to the
> admin of this system. In the final tally, this vote will count as 10,000
> votes.
>
> Coinbase, Antpool, BitPay, BitFury, etc., all do the same.
>
> Confirmed votes would be added to a new section in each respective BIP as a
> public record.
>
> Voting would run for a pre-defined period, ending when a particular block
> number is mined.
>
>
> Rationale
> Confirmed Vote Multiplier - The purpose of this is twofold; it gives a
> larger voice to organizations and the people who will have to do the work
> to implement whatever BIP the community prefers, and it will negate the
> effect of anyone trying to skew the results by voting repeatedly.
>
> Definitions
> Miner: any individual or organization that has mined at least one valid
> block in the last 2016 blocks.
>
> Company using Bitcoin: any organization using Bitcoin for financial, asset
> or other purposes, with either under development and released solutions.
>
> Developer: any individual who has or had commit access, and any individual
> who has authored a BIP
>
> Unresolved Issues
> Node voting: It would be desirable for any full node running an up-to-date
> blockchain to also be able to vote with a multiplier (e.g. 100x). But as
> this would require code changes, it is outside the scope of this BIP.
>
> Copyright
> This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-03 0:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-02 19:39 t. khan
2017-02-02 23:19 ` David Vorick
2017-02-03 0:24 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-02-03 1:32 ` Dave Scotese
2017-02-03 16:19 ` alp alp
2017-02-03 18:20 ` t. khan
2017-02-03 19:22 ` alp alp
2017-02-04 21:23 ` t. khan
2017-02-04 0:57 ` Chris Priest
2017-02-11 15:57 ` Staf Verhaegen
2017-02-14 12:33 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-04 22:02 ` t. khan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=teekhan42@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox