Author: Simon Liu 2015-06-26 22:16:15
Published on: 2015-06-26T22:16:15+00:00
The process of introducing changes to Bitcoin is currently based on supermajority consensus which relies on ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules. This approach has been criticized for not having a well-defined and documented process that properly evaluates proposed changes. The absence of such a process could suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment and any decision regarding the block size should be based on technical merit alone rather than economic interest. Simon argues that if Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be safeguarded or if it is compared to a civil engineering project where life and death is at stake, then it is only logical to have a proper evaluation process in place to ensure the safety of any proposed changes. He suggests that the discussion of this process is often dismissed out of hand, despite its importance.The analogy with civil engineering is relevant because it highlights the need for caution when dealing with potentially dangerous situations. In civil engineering, experience with disasters has shown that giving into political pressure can have disastrous consequences. Similarly, in the consensus cryptography space, it is important to learn from past mistakes and ensure that the consequences of any changes are well understood before they are implemented.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:25:26.318689+00:00