Published on: 2015-07-01T22:34:01+00:00
The discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the process of hard forks and soft forks in Bitcoin. One suggestion is to have regularly scheduled hard forks with cut-off dates for BIP submissions to avoid debates and disagreements. It is mentioned that there is a defined process for soft forks, but not for hard forks, which can lead to issues of consensus. The fundamental problem is the lack of agreement on the block size.There is also a discussion about users expecting changes that would require a hard fork and the responsibility of core maintainers. In response to the discussion, suggestions are made to create a living document of risks and mitigations as well as a decentralization metric to measure proposed changes. There is a proposal for a second mailing list called "bitcoin-process" to educate people about the Bitcoin process, along with a FAQ on its sign-up page. Concerns are raised about the development of a new FAQ, as it may be controlled by a small group and present unrealistic claims. Criticism is also directed towards the Bitcoin wiki, which contains incorrect information and cult-like claims.The power dynamics within the Bitcoin community are discussed, particularly between developers, miners, users, merchants, and exchanges. There is a debate over who has control over the consensus rules, and concerns are raised about veto power held by developers with minimal stake in Bitcoin holdings. The need for a formal process for making decisions and deploying controversial changes is highlighted. The discussion ends with links to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, emphasizing the importance of community involvement in decision-making processes.In another email thread, the role of Core Maintainer in managing the Bitcoin Core project is discussed. The discussion focuses on the ethical position of taking the safest option versus the majority's preference. Concerns are raised about potential lose-lose scenarios and the lack of mechanisms for resolving disagreements.The issue of power dynamics in bitcoin development decision-making is debated, with arguments about the influence of core developers and the vulnerability of the Bitcoin software development system. Suggestions are made for developing a process that does not rely on unwritten rules or one person's decision-making power. The importance of seeking consensus and maintaining decentralization is emphasized.The discussion brings attention to the fact that the Core Maintainer does not have more power than other individuals with GitHub commit privileges. Changes to the code must reach technical consensus before being merged. The official release of Bitcoin has significant power and control, leading to lobbying efforts for changes. Concerns are raised about the lack of mechanisms for deploying controversial changes to the consensus rules.Overall, the Bitcoin developer mailing list serves as a platform for discussions on power dynamics, decision-making processes, and the maintenance of Bitcoin Core. The need for community involvement and consensus in decision-making is acknowledged, along with the challenges posed by power dynamics within the community.Another email thread discusses the process of determining the block size limit and whether there is any consensus on it. Milly Bitcoin replied that there is no agreement on the block size limit and it has become a topic of debate. She suggested that regularly scheduled hard forks could be planned with cut-off dates for BIP submissions to avoid debates over whether there should be hard forks and what should be contained within them. She also proposed adding a step after "Dev acceptance" in the BIP process to include input from merchants, exchanges, miners, and users. The goal is to find a middle ground and move forward with an agreed-upon approach. Another participant in the conversation explained that if Satoshi had stated that 1MB was part of the definition of Bitcoin, people would accept it to the same extent as they accept the 21 million coin limit. However, there is no defined process for hard forks, which can result in a mutual veto. Both sides of the block size debate argue that their position should be considered the status quo.In response to this discussion, another participant suggests creating a living document of risks and mitigations as well as a decentralization metric to measure proposed changes. They also propose the creation of a second mailing list called "bitcoin-process" to educate people about the Bitcoin process, along with a FAQ on its sign-up page. However, concerns are raised about the development of a new FAQ, as it may be controlled by a small group and present unrealistic claims. Criticism is also directed towards the Bitcoin wiki, which contains incorrect information and cult-like claims.The power dynamics within the Bitcoin community are also debated, particularly between developers, miners, users, merchants, and exchanges. There is a debate over who has control over the consensus rules, and concerns are raised about veto power held by developers with minimal stake in Bitcoin holdings. The need for a formal process for making decisions and deploying controversial changes is highlighted. The discussion ends with links to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, emphasizing the importance of community involvement in decision-making processes.In another email thread, the role of Core Maintainer in managing the Bitcoin Core project is discussed.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T13:51:59.523410+00:00