There’s an assumption underlying most governance conversations that governance is needed, but blockchain is fundamentally about challenging that assumption. It may ultimately turn out that some form of governance is needed, but it’s too early to concede that.
-
-
6/ RE: Governance, if the protocol gets ossified, there’s less of a need for governance or BIP process. So in some sense, we *want* to ossify quickly, in order to avoid the governance mess. An ossified protocol is like Gold: it has fixed properties. No one can mess with it.
-
7/ Governance, then, is more important during the development of a protocol. In this regard, we can let different blockchains experiment with different governance processes, and let them duke it out.
-
8/ I’m of the opinion that BIP/OSS process is already adequate. When it comes to building infrastructure software, you want the most qualified people to make the decisions. It shouldn’t be a democracy.
-
9/ Regular users don’t understand the nuances of technical parameters like block size, as
@NickSzabo4 pointed out. In that sense, letting “users”/“miners” vote in the BIP process is not a good idea, because you’re assuming these parties are qualified to make technical decisions. -
10/ Keep in mind, miners can already send technical people to represent themselves in the BIP process. So could a party like Coinbase. No one is stopping them from participating.
-
11/ If you are technically competent, you can contribute. Period. No need to distinguish devs vs. users vs. miners vs. exchanges. Think about it, how would you know a dev is not already working for a miner?
-
12/ TL;DR: Blockchain governance should be a question of expertise, not democracy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
