If your governance process is "delegate everything to a privileged class called the engineers", that's fine, but it's necessary to *make this clear to users up front* and *make it an explicit rather than an implicit process* (implicit processes allows you to mislead users easily)
-
-
-
*In my political opinion*, if your governance model requires an ill-defined class of trusted engineers, it is not suited to governing a blockchain. (the above is not similarly qualified as IMPO for a reason)
-
Not sure why it's not suited. FWIW, "delegate to the engineers" was how most things of consequence ever got invented. Name one technological invention that was designed (designed, not voted for) by the masses?
-
It's ill suited if the class of engineers you are delegating to is *ill-defined* (eg if one can argue their membership in this set). See: Bitcoin If this set of engineers is OTOH made explicit, it is quite a good & clear model IMO. This is the "benevolent dictatorship" model.
-
The problem I have with BTC governance is the continued refusal to make this set explicit *as a community* (a set that, e.g., voting is very suited for choosing). The other problem I have is disingenuous charlatans insisting the process is apolitical when it's anything but.
-
1/ Anything that involves human decision-making has some political element, sure. But engineers (& scientists) are *specifically trained* to avoid political bias & to think objectively.
-
2/ This and the fact that they are technically competent, make them the most qualified to drive the technology forward. Not the masses.
-
3/ A better way than “making the set of engineers explicit” via some form of election, is to leave the development process open (as it is now), but do two things:
- 9 more replies
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.
