The idea of “consensus” in the bitcoin network is interesting to me. The code expresses “consensus” mathematically, and there exists a binary truth of whether a consensus has been “reached.” That’s simple and straightforward. It’s easy to reason about what happens once a consensus has been tautologically reached.
However, answering the question of “do we have a consensus yet?” is far less precise. Answering “what compromises can we make to achieve consensus,” even less so. All deliberation and conversation must happen offline, in “meatspace” amongst humans and operating outside mathematical principles. For example with the segwit2x fork, there was the New York Agreement, discussion all over the internet, etc. But does anyone have a precise number for the “theoretical consensus” or is all discussion based entirely on estimates?
I’ve always thought the “51% consensus” and the “hard fork” idea were hand-wavy solutions to a problem that can fundamentally only be solved by human cooperation. I also think Satoshi never expected this kind of discontent to be such a common occurrence.
Bitcoin should include a consensus building layer of code that acts as an arbiter for building consensus. It could execute polls, enforce rules of deliberation, etc. This is basically decentralized voting, which is generally seen as a distinct topic from bitcoin. But it seems bitcoin, one of the biggest decentralized networks, could benefit from a consensus building protocol.
The problem of decentralized governance is not going away. Solving it will be a massive technological step forward.
However, answering the question of “do we have a consensus yet?” is far less precise. Answering “what compromises can we make to achieve consensus,” even less so. All deliberation and conversation must happen offline, in “meatspace” amongst humans and operating outside mathematical principles. For example with the segwit2x fork, there was the New York Agreement, discussion all over the internet, etc. But does anyone have a precise number for the “theoretical consensus” or is all discussion based entirely on estimates?
I’ve always thought the “51% consensus” and the “hard fork” idea were hand-wavy solutions to a problem that can fundamentally only be solved by human cooperation. I also think Satoshi never expected this kind of discontent to be such a common occurrence.
Bitcoin should include a consensus building layer of code that acts as an arbiter for building consensus. It could execute polls, enforce rules of deliberation, etc. This is basically decentralized voting, which is generally seen as a distinct topic from bitcoin. But it seems bitcoin, one of the biggest decentralized networks, could benefit from a consensus building protocol.
The problem of decentralized governance is not going away. Solving it will be a massive technological step forward.