Conjectured governance under proof-of-stake seems to involve programmers & other amateurs making legal & accounting decisions. Bitcoin governance does not. Even when lawyers & accountants properly take over PoS governance, PoW governance will likely be far more socially scalable.
The question is far less about who makes the operational decisions and far more about what kinds of operational decisions people are called on to make.
-
-
PoW is socially scalable because it’s currently limited in scope. If there were multiple types of PoW for BTC then governance complexity rises (ie the more types of work rewarded with coin the greater need for rules).
-
Historically rewarding specialized labor (PoW) scaled society from encampments to cities to global culture.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You make an interesting point Nick. IMO crypto is meant to reduce the accountants and lawyers, bringing the power to the people! That's why I like nodes and coins that give owners a vote
#decentralizedThanks. 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.