1/ I feel like we’re mixing things here. “Immutability” in the context of blockchains usually refers to immutability of the ledger, not the protocol.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
2/ If you’re talking about ossifying the protocol, that’s a different question. Agreed with
@byrongibson that at some point the protocol will get exponentially harder to change, once enough layers & vested interests have been built on top.1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
3/ This will happen to any blockchain with significant mass adoption.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
4/ You can of course ignore the ossified protocol & keep adding your own stuff to it. But likely no one would want to use your custom protocol.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
5/ Just look at how hard it is to upgrade the Internet Protocol. Many years ago, I worked for a telecom company & personally witnessed how painfully slow carriers move in terms of adopting IPv6- despite everyone knowing how much better IPv6 is.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
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.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
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.4 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @asglidden and
That's a bit like saying only experts can vote in political elections.....
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @finck_m and
I present Trump vs Clinton as a counterexample.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.
