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.
-
-
> 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.
