Author: Milly Bitcoin 2015-06-28 13:13:43
Published on: 2015-06-28T13:13:43+00:00
The writer has expressed their lack of trust in the Github process and the dictatorial style of the developers who shut out many stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions. They also mentioned how some the maintainers change the rules on the fly and sometimes say a proposal had no objections so it is approved, while other times they say a proposal has no support so it is rejected. The writer argues that the core developers have a significant influence to change the consensus rules, and there is no way right now to change the consensus rules except to go through the core maintainer unless you get everybody on the network to switch to your fork. The writer further points out that the outside influences and stake of the developer are a relevant topic. The same types of things are discussed on this list all the time in the context of miners, users, merchants, and exchanges. The developers try to place themselves on some kind of pedestal where they are the protectors and pure, and everyone else (miners, users, merchants) are abusers, spammers, attackers, scammers, cheaters, etc. The writer argues that if a core developer has minimal stake in Bitcoin yet has major veto power over code change, that is a problem. The writer further argues that some kind of process needs to be developed that does not involve trying to convince one person to make the changes or a system that depends on unwritten, ever-changing rules maintained by a handful of people.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:48:49.540393+00:00