Published on: 2015-07-01T17:28:30+00:00
In an email dated July 1st, 2015, Jeffrey Paul requested that discussions on a certain list be limited to the research and development of Bitcoin Core. He argued that if this was not the purpose of the list, then it was misleadingly named. Paul suggested that if Bitcoin Core development is to be considered independent from development of Bitcoin protocol, then it needs its own separate list. The email included two non-text attachments, one being a pgp-key and the other being a digital signature.There is a common misconception that the core developers of Bitcoin govern the cryptocurrency. However, it is important to note that they set standards instead of governing it. This standard is voluntary and its importance in defining consensus rules is subject to speculation. The amount of influence core developers have on Bitcoin depends on specific circumstances. It is suggested that the wording be changed to reflect the voluntary nature of this standard.The idea of governing Bitcoin through voting is futile as it would lead to the collapse of the cryptocurrency. Bitcoin operates on consensus, and attempts to impose concepts such as voting will not work. The core developers do not govern Bitcoin; they are only developers because they do not try to govern. Rather than using a centralized governance structure, Bitcoin relies on decentralized systems that depend on consensus.The co-existence of Core and XT is a step towards decentralization, with both serving as opposition parties that keep each other in check. A two-party system would enable people and businesses to cast Yes/No votes on proposed changes. Finally, the proposal to improve the voting mechanism of Bitcoin suggests adding 8-byte votes into blocks, with miners acting as sensors that collect all the noise and chatter and cast it into a vote. It is suggested that attention should be given to engineering progress on Bitcoin Core rather than subjecting everyone's email inboxes to hundreds of opinions about governance and block size without patches or simulations on an engineering mailing list.The author considers the possibility of building an effective Bitcoin governance and concludes that it is not plausible. Instead, they propose that Core and XT continue to co-exist in parallel, acting as a kind of two-party system with different people, structures, processes, and political standings, keeping each other in check. The sides' respective power will be determined by the number of nodes running and people/businesses on board. They will have to negotiate any significant change at the risk of yet another full fork.The author believes this is a step towards decentralization, proving that Bitcoin is indeed a decentralized system, and that the minority cannot impose its will. The author argues that if the sides agree now, it would be a bad thing because it would mean kicking the governance problem down the road. Instead, they propose that both sides should start thinking of themselves as opposition parties, with people and businesses ultimately deciding through a Yes/No vote on proposed changes. This new reality requires an improved voting mechanism for Bitcoin, which could include adding something like 8-byte votes into blocks, with miners serving as 'hubs,' collecting all the noise and chatter and casting it into a vote.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:11:37.517674+00:00