From: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail•com>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com>, bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:40:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4294 bytes --]
As posted:
**Enforcement/Organization** I agree with your comments. I don't believe in
setting up an organization to manage this process (would be too much power
and not really needed because the internet is pretty good at information
sharing). Therefore, I designed it around the assumption that participation
is voluntary. This means that it's hard to enforce rules like forcing
groups to see the other side. Groupthink/Echo chambers is real and is bad
but it's hard to change human nature.
In regards to enforcement, I believe that the best approach would be to
motivate committees to produce the best opinion they can (and also proof of
stake, another weak point in this proposal), as the better they can do this
the more likely the community will accept their opinion as valid and
important.
Indeed, I believe that without an organization managing the process, it's
up to each individual reader of each BIP/Opinions set to make the decision
on whether or not there is clear and true community acceptance.
----
**Committee versus another approach**
Pros of using Committees:
* Committees are used today in many fields with a range of success. Lots of
previous work to work off of here, history is established.
* Many segments already have committee-like structures (Merchants produce
shared signed documents, miners often represent themselves, User groups
have representatives like voting on subreddit moderators, Core Devs have
Core Devs)
* Committees can filter a range of opinions down to a yes/no
* Committees have real people that can be talked to, contacted, etc.
* Much easier to proof stake in a range (People generally accept the
Bitcoin Core has 70-90% of the market share) vs someone trying to proof
they make up (.000001% of the Bitcoin user-base)
* Committees have some stability, encourages experience and expertise
(Committee members can be knowledgeable in their area and adequately
understand BIPs)
Cons:
* Fear of committees working in the dark, censoring opinions (i.e. "Dark
smokey room of fat cats") (Possible solution: make committee power fluid
i.e. easily abandon-able: miners can change pools, users can change client
forks, change merchants, users can re-group, encourage transparency)
* More centralized, centralization of power (generally bad) (Possible
solution: encourage smaller committees)
* Centralization pressure (groups may seek to consolidate to gain power)
(Possible solution: Segmentation)
* Encourages groupthink, political maneuvers, turns good people into
politicians, mud-tossing
**Another possible approach: micro votes**
Pros:
* Each user can represent themselves, no censorship
* People feel more involved and empowered
Cons:
* How to prove and prevent manipulation?
* Only motivated people will contribute. Motivated people may be motivated
for bad reasons.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance
>
> Some quick comments:
>
> I have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do
> think there are easily some major objections to committee design. If I
> vanish and never respond with my objections, perhaps there's an IETF
> RFC about this already....
>
> Something that may mitigate my possible objections would be some
> mandatory requirement about ecosystem echo-chambers making many
> attempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative
> viewpoints. Understanding objections at a fundamental level, enough to
> make strong steelman statements, is very important to ensure that the
> competing opinions are not censored from consideration. Pathological
> integration and internalization of these steelman arguments can be
> very useful, even if the process looks unusual.
>
> Your process does not have to replace any particular BIP process
> as-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own
> perhaps indefinitely without replacement. I don't think too many BIP
> processes are necessarily incompatible except by namespace collision.
>
> https://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b#gistcomment-1566432
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-04 4:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-04 0:30 Andy Chase
2015-09-04 0:41 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-04 0:52 ` Andy Chase
2015-09-04 0:43 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-09-04 4:40 ` Andy Chase [this message]
2015-09-04 19:20 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-04 20:13 ` Andy Chase
2015-09-04 20:31 ` Peter Todd
2015-09-04 20:42 ` Martin Becze
2015-09-04 21:05 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-09-04 21:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-04 21:36 ` Andy Chase
2015-09-04 21:45 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-05 21:19 ` Andy Chase
[not found] ` <CAHv+tb5ksyZKp5jLvmzFbD2vBOUrWn6ps80ODECVRqYj8m=PZA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-06 20:44 ` Andy Chase
2016-01-19 2:12 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-01-19 4:23 ` Andy Chase
2016-01-19 6:07 ` Dave Scotese
2015-09-07 19:37 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-10 1:21 ` Andy Chase
2015-09-12 23:50 ` Andy Chase
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=CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=theandychase@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kanzure@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