BIP Process and Votes



Summary:

The discussion on the decision-making process for Bitcoin software development has been ongoing for some time, with concerns raised about the lack of a defined process. Milly Bitcoin expressed frustration at the perceived defensive and cultish responses from developers when this issue is brought up, suggesting that personality-driven discussions rather than those based on Computer Science or any defined process prevail. Jeff Garzik responded to Milly Bitcoin's post, advising people not to feed the troll, and stating that the issue had been explained multiple times before to no avail. Mark Friedenbach then posted a detailed explanation of the consensus process for Bitcoin Core development, which he claimed was well-documented and carefully constructed. Friedenbach distinguishes between non-consensus and consensus changes in Bitcoin Core, with consensus changes requiring an extremely long discussion period, all relevant stakeholders being given a chance to comment, and no significant objections remaining before they can be merged into Bitcoin Core. These consensus-code changes must be unanimous, as the premise of Bitcoin is that no one has the right to reach into another's pocket and define how they can or cannot spend their coins.Russ added his own thoughts to the discussion, arguing that the lead developer is in fact a significant decider, despite not wanting to be seen as such. Russ suggests that this leads to a broken, unwritten/unspoken process, which may work with a small group of developers but poses a risk to businesses/investors looking in from the outside. Milly Bitcoin also responded to Friedenbach's post, reiterating her belief that personality-driven arguments are hindering the definition of a real process. Raystonn initiated the discussion by asking who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core, and what the threshold for approval should be.


Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:50:06.944672+00:00