Author: Jeff Garzik 2015-06-25 05:07:26
Published on: 2015-06-25T05:07:26+00:00
In a mailing list discussion, Milly Bitcoin expresses frustration at the lack of a well-defined process for making changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core. Mark Friedenbach responds by outlining the existing process, which requires consensus-code changes to be approved unanimously after an extensive discussion period involving all relevant stakeholders. Friedenbach argues that the nature of Bitcoin itself requires such a process to ensure that no one has the right to define how others can spend their coins. Milly Bitcoin continues to argue that there is too much personality-driven discussion and not enough focus on computer science or a defined process. She also raises concerns about the incentives for new developers and the risk this presents to businesses and investors looking in from the outside. Russ adds that until personality-based arguments are set aside, defining a real process will remain difficult. The discussion began with Raystonn asking who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core and what level of approval is needed. The discussion eventually turned to the need for a well-defined process for consensus-code changes, with Friedenbach arguing that the current process works and is necessary for ensuring the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:56:00.279428+00:00