Author: David Vorick 2017-02-02 23:19:39+00:00
Published on: 2017-02-02T23:19:39+00:00
The author agrees with the idea of having a way for developers to show that they've given an idea legitimate consideration before rejection. However, the author believes that an on-chain system would complicate things and adds unnecessary incentives. The author prefers to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather than approvals, as some changes don't need support outside the developers. The author argues that it shouldn't cost money or political power to raise an objection, and anyone should be able to do so if they have a legitimate objection. In conclusion, the author believes that it would be good if it were easier to figure out who had considered a proposal and what their objections or praises were. However, the author doesn't believe in any systemization around what is required to pass or fail a proposal and wants no barrier to entry to provide an opinion.
Updated on: 2023-05-26T14:27:36.968788+00:00