Author: Milly Bitcoin 2015-06-25 12:42:40
Published on: 2015-06-25T12:42:40+00:00
The discussion revolves around the decentralized nature of open source software and Bitcoin. Milly Bitcoin labels the claim that open-source software is decentralized as "cultish," arguing that just because users can choose which version to run does not mean it is truly decentralized. Similarly, while Bitcoin uses the mining process for consensus, it does not necessarily mean that the software versions have the same level of decentralization. Milly Bitcoin also criticizes the lack of a well-defined and documented process in Bitcoin development, which often leads to personality-based arguments instead of a defined process. Mark Friedenbach defends the current process, stating that changes to consensus-code must be unanimous and go through an extremely long discussion period, ensuring that everyone is aware of the change and consents to it. He argues that this process works and has successfully deployed uncontroversial changes like BIP 66. Despite this, Milly Bitcoin believes that the lack of a defined process poses a high risk and wastes effort, particularly since new developers are often paid by companies who want to influence the code. The discussion ends with Raystonn posing the question of who should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of having a clear and defined process for Bitcoin development and the challenges associated with achieving true decentralization.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:47:48.941068+00:00