There is some thinking that total immutability could actually happen, once a blockchain hosts enough value and enough parties with different interests become invested, it could become too difficult to make any changes to the code anymore. See SegWit as a possible precursor.
-
-
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 -
-
-
That's a bit like saying only experts can vote in political elections.....
-
I think it’s slightly different
Everyone can somewhat judge what a good leader is. But not everyone can understand the significance of the block size or transaction malleability. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Regular users also don't understand the nuances of minimum wage disemployment effects, trade agreements, financial systemic risks, urban congestion externalities, etc etc. So if "regular users can't understand nuances" is the standard for "this is tech, not politics", then...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
“What if we let people who knew about things invest in those things” -
@leashlessThanks. 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.
