Author: Andy Chase 2015-09-06 20:44:56
Published on: 2015-09-06T20:44:56+00:00
In an email conversation, Andy Chase shared some updates and thoughts on a proposal related to scalability of Bitcoin. One point of discussion was whether or not BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) should go through a process that reflects their reality. Luke Dashjr suggested that only hard forks should go through the hard fork process, soft forks through the soft fork process, and so on. Andy countered that people like having a say, especially those with a lot of money on the line or those who are passionate about Bitcoin. He also provided a counterexample where he emailed all the sponsors of a workshop conference about their stance regarding scalability, receiving a 47% response rate. However, he did acknowledge that there are examples that agree with Luke's perspective, such as the #bitcoin-assets community, which is against participating in future BIPs or allowing discussion with people outside their community. Andy also mentioned that he is seeking a historian or political science expert to assist him in this area, and many people are complaining about the stake part, worrying about ambiguity. He believes that proof of stake is a poor voting mechanism because it gives the most power to those with a lot of money. However, he thinks proof of stake might work for merchants to prove they have a decent economic stake if they sign with a well-known cold wallet address.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:03:50.104391+00:00