Also, if we pretend that blockchains don't need governance, then we will find ourselves with our pants down when governance is urgently needed
-
-
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 -
-
-
seems reasonable that protocol development could be viewed more similarly to the regeneration of planet earth / the human body (value of invisible work), as opposed to politics. A peek into my thesis developing http://cultu.re
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.
