Author: Mike Hearn 2015-06-18 13:31:54
Published on: 2015-06-18T13:31:54+00:00
The author raises two issues with Bitcoin Core: how decisions are made and what happens if the decision-making process goes wrong. The author finds it frustrating to explain how decisions are made in Bitcoin Core, as there is no clear process for making decisions. The author asks whether it is a vote of people with commit access or whether it is a 100% agreement of "core developers." The author also wonders who these people are. If there is a proposal to change the block format to include a Widget, and one of the committers refuses to accept it, what is the process for resolving this problem? Gavin and the author suggest that the solution is a hard fork of the block chain. However, others believe that a contentious hard fork must never happen. The author argues that the decision-making process in Bitcoin Core is in dispute, and a hard fork is the only check on the power of those who make decisions. The author believes that a hard fork could work out okay, as Bitcoin has survived an accidental fork before, and planned soft forks require upgrades. The author asks whether readers understand their perspective and whether they disagree because they believe that a hard fork to resolve a dispute can't work technically or some other reason.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:26:01.618878+00:00