Author: Milly Bitcoin 2015-06-25 03:19:46
Published on: 2015-06-25T03:19:46+00:00
The discussion in this email chain revolves around the consensus process for making changes to Bitcoin Core. The main point of contention is who gets to vote on approval for committing a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) implementation into Bitcoin Core, and whether a simple majority of voters is sufficient for approval. According to Mark Friedenbach, changes to non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged when recognized developers review and test the code, there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge judges the code to be ready. However, consensus-changes must go through an extremely long discussion period that gives all relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant objections can remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous and must be made with the awareness and consent of everyone involved. The email chain also touches on the issue of personality-based arguments and the unwritten/unspoken process for decision-making within the Bitcoin community. Milly Bitcoin suggests that the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence the code. Russ adds that until the personality-based arguments are resolved, it will be difficult to define a real process. Raystonn calls for a civil discussion on the undefined portion of the BIP process regarding who should get to vote on approval for committing a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core and what constitutes sufficient approval.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:46:55.019357+00:00