To distinguish charlatans from valuable players in crypto: * charlatans hype their supposed governance innovations * valuable players focus on minimizing governance (a.k.a. trust minimization) Only the latter gives you global seamlessness, censorship resistance, etc.https://twitter.com/Ruminorang/status/1027756116141371392 …
-
BTC has trust-minimisation down cold. And yet, the larger design space is sufficiently worth exploring so as to make the introduction of visible coordination mechanisms worthwhile, if they are sufficiently well-aligned.
No it doesn't, and the exploring a part of the space that has for hundreds of years led to failure after failure, rather than the part of the space made possible by comp sci that leads to even greater trust min of even more functionality, ends in, you should guess it, failure.
![TOXIC Hash [☣🛡⚡🌮 🔑]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1143221030296727552/lHJmJ39V_normal.jpg)
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
-
-
thank you for not using the word trustless, trusting that you can prove something in the future is still trust. I don't understand why you don't consider trust min governance as well though. Where there's people there will always be politics and people making new rules. No?
-
Where trust-min protocols can be brought to bear there can be much less of it, and much less is much better.
-
I guess I consider trust min protocols as governance still. In a similar way to how the cosmos is governed by the laws of nature, there's still rules.
-
Agreed. There's no perpetual motion machine, and nothing you can build will permanently exist without restoration, upgrades, and adaptation to changing times/environments. TCP/IP is a good example. Whatever/whoever decides how those changes are implemented is "governance"
-
There's a huge difference between making these kinds of decisions and making per-transaction decisions. The latter can be (and has been, in Bitcoin) eliminated and the former can be minimized.
-
Does former exist (even at minimal levels)? If you can have e.g. blocksize war scare talent, resources, and community (not to mention second chain), thats governance breakdown. Whether you think of BCH as true or an attack, how events unfolded != desirable decision making flow
-
FWIW I'm not saying that BCH is worth anything or that BTC didn't survive, but rather this (to me) is an event that shows governance could be done better and improvement is worth attention
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Fiat people can waste their time exploring failure. Bitcoin people/tech can build the future. Tiered currency. Tiered views. Tiered societies. Which one will be better?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.