Author: Milly Bitcoin 2015-06-27 12:50:14
Published on: 2015-06-27T12:50:14+00:00
In a conversation on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list in June 2015, a user named Milly Bitcoin expressed her skepticism towards the GitHub process and developers' dictatorial style, stating that developers shut out many stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions, and the maintainers deleted some of her messages. She also claimed that the attitude of the developers was not friendly towards different users/businesses/miners, and they often characterized them as abusers, spammers, people trying to game the system, while characterizing themselves as pure and good. In response, Jorge Timón acknowledged that defining "uncontroversial" could be difficult, but bitcoin core developers don't decide hardfork changes; so far, softfork changes have been made because they have been considered "uncontroversial," not because there's any centralized negotiating table or voting process to decide when to force every user to adapt their software to new consensus rules. Milly Bitcoin viewed the GitHub system as the biggest centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest threat to continued survival. While anyone can fork the code, someone compared it to the river Thames: if you don't like where the river runs, you can dig a new one... here is a spoon. The core developers have the biggest influence by far to decide hard fork changes. There is no other place to go. In any case, what happened in the past does not matter. What is going to happen now is the question. If nothing happens and everybody sits around saying they are not in charge of the consensus rules and nothing ever gets done, Milly Bitcoin sees Bitcoin just fading away into oblivion.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:51:25.997082+00:00