Published on: 2015-06-21T14:45:30+00:00
The context discusses various issues related to decision-making, consensus, and the process of proposing changes in Bitcoin Core. It emphasizes the importance of convincing users about the benefits of agreeing on a common trade protocol for the growth of Bitcoin. The author suggests focusing on informing users about the consequences of their choices and making improvements based on user feedback.The proposal introduces a new process for submitting draft BIPs that affect the block chain consensus rules or the peer-to-peer protocol. It defines criteria for verdict delivery and provides instructions for rejected BIPs. However, there is no interest in improving the BIP process, which has not changed much since its adaptation from Python Enhancement Proposals.Discussions among developers highlight concerns about the lack of a formalized decision-making process in Bitcoin Core. Technical consensus is understood, but the absence of rules hampers progress and prevents the system from being manipulated. The role of users in choosing software and the need for a genuine process to avoid contention are emphasized.Email exchanges reveal debates regarding decision-making power, the importance of consensus, and the process of hard forks. The lack of clarity and a formalized process lead to frustration, and the need for a clear process that cannot be manipulated is emphasized. The possibility of hard forks and their implications are discussed, as well as the necessity of a mechanism for people to disagree with consensus decisions.Allegations of projects being run like Wikipedia or involved in an "edit war" are deemed false and can be verified through commit history. The importance of a clear decision-making process is stressed, and the author raises concerns about the current process and the potential for conflicts.Overall, the context highlights the need for a transparent and efficient decision-making process in Bitcoin Core, along with the importance of consensus, user feedback, and informed choices. It also addresses the challenges associated with hard forks and the role of developers and users in shaping the future of Bitcoin.In a discussion between Pieter Wuille and Wladimir J. van der Laan, the lack of a clear process for making changes to Bitcoin software development was highlighted. The current process is disorganized, with decisions being made through random tweets, Reddit posts, and blog posts. This lack of structure makes Bitcoin appear amateurish and risky. While forks are accepted in open source projects, Wuille cautioned against contentious hard forks due to the potential consequences they may have on the chain.Pieter Wuille responded to a suggestion made by Mike Hearn regarding a hardfork for Bitcoin Core. He explained that while softforks can be implemented relatively easily, hardforks are much more difficult as they require users to migrate to a new system. This migration process is risky and cannot guarantee that everyone will change their full nodes. Wuille argued that controversial changes to the system's rules set a dangerous precedent about who is in charge and emphasized the importance of consensus among users. Technological growth should not compromise the fundamental principles of the system.Wladimir J. van der Laan addressed criticisms that the Bitcoin Core project is run like Wikipedia or an "edit war." He stated that there have been very few reversions in over 5,500 commits made in six years, disproving the claim that anyone with commit access can block change. However, he acknowledged that controversies can arise, leading to reluctance in touching certain issues.Mike Hearn expressed his belief that managing Bitcoin with a Linux kernel style dictator would lead to centralization, which is not ideal for Bitcoin. Hard forks put everyone's bitcoins at risk, and this approach could expose individuals to threats and blackmailing. Hearn hopes that the confrontation surrounding Bitcoin will demonstrate the cryptocurrency's resistance to centralization and emphasize the importance of consensus.The Bitcoin Core project handles consensus changes differently from other open-source projects. Achieving consensus is challenging, and controversial issues are dealt with carefully. The ongoing libconsensus work aims to separate Bitcoin Core from Bitcoin Consensus, maintaining a decentralized network beyond anyone's control. Running the codebase like Wikipedia is not feasible, as maintainers must make decisions and respect them for the project to progress.A user on the Bitcoin development mailing list expressed concerns about a developer's "nuclear suggestion" to revoke commit access from everyone else and make changes independently. The user viewed this as sabotage against the Bitcoin community and called for an apology and explanation. The user also mentioned a recent policy change at bitcoin.org to prevent similar situations in the future.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T13:22:00.676771+00:00