Author: Pindar Wong 2015-06-25 06:06:09
Published on: 2015-06-25T06:06:09+00:00
The discussion on Bitcoin development process has been raised again with a question about the establishment of a new testnet. The response to this question has been met with defensive and vague answers, leading some to believe that the current Bitcoin development process lacks a well-defined plan. This lack of defined process is seen as a risk and leads to wasted effort and time. The issue is not personality-based, but it is essential to define a process that works for all stakeholders. Bitcoin developers have a carefully constructed process that works and is well-documented. Changes to non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers, and there are no outstanding objections. Consensus-changes get merged into Bitcoin Core only after the criteria are met, AND an extremely long discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant objections remain. Every indication is that Bitcoin's consensus process works and scales. Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. However, the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence the code, which should be considered. While the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense, the chief developer is the "decider," and defining a clear process can help reduce perceived risks for businesses/investors looking in from the outside.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:55:28.364476+00:00