BIP Process and Votes

Summary:

The discussion revolves around the maintenance of Bitcoin Core and the changes to consensus rules. However, there is no explicit definition for external audiences in regards to these issues, which means that people have to lobby for hard forks. There is debate over who has control over the consensus rules, with some arguing that it is the core maintainer while others believe that changes need to reach technical consensus before they are merged.One relevant issue is the influence of outside parties on developers and their stake in Bitcoin holdings. Some argue that it is problematic if a core developer has minimal stake but major veto power over code change. Thus, a process needs to be developed that does not rely on unwritten, ever-changing rules maintained by a handful of people.The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list centers around whether a formal process should be implemented to decide on proposed changes that are not "uncontroversial." The poster argues that the term "uncontroversial" is too vague, and any formal process would imply centralization in decision-making, which could lead to corruption and potentially destroy Bitcoin. They believe that the current consensus rules should remain decentralized and that any changes should be made through community discussion and agreement.In conclusion, the Bitcoin community is grappling with issues related to the maintenance of Bitcoin Core and the changes to consensus rules. The lack of a clear definition for external audiences has led to the need for hard forks, and there is debate over who has control over the consensus rules. Additionally, the influence of outside parties on developers and their stake in Bitcoin holdings is a relevant issue. While some argue for a formal process to decide on proposed changes, others believe that the current consensus rules should remain decentralized, and any changes should be made through community discussion and agreement.

Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:49:27.465220+00:00