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 …
-
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 -
-
-
It's definitely a difference in kind rather than degree, but maybe there's a more effective way of making the distinction. I like teaching people through using the abstraction of governance into code. The metaphor is useful and easy to understand.
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.