Author: Andy Chase 2015-09-04 21:36:42
Published on: 2015-09-04T21:36:42+00:00
The conversation is about the process of making changes to Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). The speaker suggests that all BIPs should go through the same process, not just hard forks. This would make the process more familiar and well-used. Additionally, having more people review and approve even small local changes could be beneficial. However, the bureaucracy only applies to BIPs, not pull requests (PRs), and there have only been 18 approved/final/accepted BIPs in the past four years.In response to a question about who makes high-level Bitcoin decisions, another participant suggests that for hard forks, economic consensus should come from those who accept payment in bitcoins weighted by their actual volume of such payments. For soft forks, a majority of miners should be consulted. Anything else is up to individual software projects. Softforks have a relatively mature technical method for measuring support and deploying, but the same thing is impractical for hardforks. A formal way to measure actual economic acceptance seems like a good idea to study, but it needs to be reasonably accurate so as to not change the outcome from its natural/necessary result.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:03:34.251869+00:00