Author: Mark Friedenbach 2015-06-25 01:50:59
Published on: 2015-06-25T01:50:59+00:00
The Bitcoin Core development process is well documented and carefully constructed. Unlike other open source software, changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready. Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core only after an extremely long discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes must be unanimous. The premise of bitcoin is that no one has the right to reach into your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your coins. Therefore, when a change is made to the rules governing the nature of Bitcoin, everyone must be made aware of the change and consent to it. Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Bitcoin does not have a single decider but rather a process of consensus. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.In a discussion on who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core, it is pointed out that businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see this as a risk until a real process is defined. However, until personality-based arguments are set aside, it will be tough to define a real process.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:53:06.267172+00:00