Bitcoin’s most profound advancement. “On-chain governance” entirely misses this crucial fact.https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1055168586434535424 …
-
Further, on chain governance conflates higher(constitutional) and lower (legislative) law. One(inflation rate, consensus rules) should be categorically more difficult to amend than the other (software updates). Productive discourse is inhibited by lack of consensus on this truth
Without an argument surface ruthlessly minimized at the original writing (coders) & ratification (node upgrades) phases, the potential of trust-minimized code is destroyed and we are backed to very naive & inferior versions of traditional "rule of man" governance.
-
-
What do you think of the 'deist blockchain' argument - a blockchain (eg Ethereum) whose layer 1 code is unstable and constantly changing at first but which eventually ossifies completely as it matures and becomes scalable? Instead of BDFL, BDFB (benevolent dictator for building).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Wouldn't these problems apply to stake as a whole. Wouldn't onchain governance more or less be what all stake systems are because at the end it's coin holders deciding what node upgrades to support. POS seems no different than PoS systems where you have a ticket vote.
-
In other words [PoW : PoS : Onchain Gov] -> [reduced argument surface : increased argument surface : Even worse] -> [PoW < any PoS = and sometimes < Any Onchain Gov] .. Ie. PoS is on the spectrum of Onchain Gov, and backward trajectory from reduced argument surface.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.