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?
8/ Rather than doing that, OSS is about having a hands-off approach at the system input: everyone who is worth his/her salt can contribute. And enforcing quality *at the system output*: code is reviewed & subjected to a common, objective standard that everyone agrees on.
-
-
9/ I believe this process is a good model for the so-called “governance” of blockchain protocol development. Again, contingent on the fact that we define the common objective standard clearly.
-
> Again, contingent on the fact that we define the common objective standard clearly. IMO this is impossible.
-
Why not? eg: many would agree that Bitcoin has these high-level requirements (ranked by priority): 1) Security (immutability of ledger + secure token ownership) 2) Decentralization 3) Scalability 4) Privacy When there're conflicting goals, higher priority req takes precedence.
-
You can flesh it out further of cos. E.g.: How to go about making trade-offs, in what scenarios they are allowed. If you disagree with said standard, that’s the signal for forking off to your own blockchain.
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.
