4 ms·

It wouldn't. If anything, it would vastly concentrate power further in the hands of a few--except this time, those few would be the miners and core developers.

by Frondo 11y ago

It wouldn't. If anything, it would vastly concentrate power further in the hands of a few--except this time, those few would be the miners and core developers. Say "the people" wanted to vote to increase the pool to 25 million coins, instead of 21. That is a pretty basic form of political power to exercise, saying "we want to change this structure that affects our lives, let's vote on it". How would "the people" hold that vote? The answers I've gotten in the past, when I ask this question, have been one of: * Just patch the software, and if 51% of the miners accept it, that's it! Or... * Currency shouldn't be under democratic control. Neither of those statements is anything like democracy. And those attitudes seem to be pretty prevalent in the bitcoin world. It's for that that I could never, ever endorse Bitcoin in any way. My interest is in pushing for a greater distribution of power--less concentration in the hands of a few--and doing so that actually engages with everyone, whoever they are, open source dev or not.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
We don't disagree. If power moved from governments to a handful of developers "it would completely upend the political power structures." It is democratic is because people are voluntarily adopting BTC where alternatives exist - which is unprecedented in the history of money. They vote by acting.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Voting, in this context of political engagement, isn't just any ol' act of expressing a preference. "Vote with your dollars" is not voting, though you often hear people say this sort of thing, and I think this is why people now confuse voting with making decisions in general. You choose the green shirt, you don't "vote for green," when you dress yourself in the morning. Voting is the act of expressing a preference in a framework of governance that lets people engage with the governing structures and policies, and these days we also take it to mean that each person gets a vote so long as they're a citizen--they don't need to be rich or even literate. That isn't built into Bitcoin anywhere. It's antidemocratic because there is no way for every single user to express a preference in its design or operation. That doesn't seem to bother the bitcoin advocates I've talked with, either. The sense I get, and I realize this is not so charitable, is that they look at it as a way to be the guys in power in this new system, and aren't so keen to bake in some sort of voting because it'd just take that away again.

by Frondo 11y ago

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

We don't disagree. If power moved from governments to a handful of developers "it would completely upend the political power structures." It is democratic is because people are voluntarily adopting BTC where alternatives exist - which is unprecedented in the history of money. They vote by acting.

Frondo 11y ago
Voting, in this context of political engagement, isn't just any ol' act of expressing a preference. "Vote with your dollars" is not voting, though you often hear people say this sort of thing, and I think this is why people now confuse voting with making decisions in general. You choose the green shirt, you don't "vote for green," when you dress yourself in the morning. Voting is the act of expressing a preference in a framework of governance that lets people engage with the governing structures and policies, and these days we also take it to mean that each person gets a vote so long as they're a citizen--they don't need to be rich or even literate. That isn't built into Bitcoin anywhere. It's antidemocratic because there is no way for every single user to express a preference in its design or operation. That doesn't seem to bother the bitcoin advocates I've talked with, either. The sense I get, and I realize this is not so charitable, is that they look at it as a way to be the guys in power in this new system, and aren't so keen to bake in some sort of voting because it'd just take that away again.