Author: Alex Morcos 2015-06-25 02:30:53
Published on: 2015-06-25T02:30:53+00:00
In an email thread on the Bitcoin development mailing list, Mark Friedenbach clarified the process for merging changes into Bitcoin Core. He explained that non-consensus changes tend to get merged after a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers, and when there are no outstanding objections. Consensus-changes, however, require an extremely long discussion period during which all relevant stakeholders can comment, and no significant objections can remain. Additionally, consensus-code changes must be unanimous. Friedenbach argued that this process is necessary because changes to the rules governing the nature of Bitcoin define the validity of other people's money, and therefore everyone must be made aware of the change and consent to it. While uncontroversial changes have been deployed without issue, Friedenbach emphasized that contentious changes that are not accepted by the process of consensus are rejected because the process is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. The email exchange was sparked by Raystonn who started a civil discussion on who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core. He asked whether a simple majority of voters is sufficient for approval or not, and if not, then what is? Milly Bitcoin also raised concerns about personalities being involved in the decision-making process and the incentive for new developers being paid by companies who want to influence the code. She argued that until personality-based arguments are passed, defining a real process will be tough.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:46:43.046224+00:00