2 ms·

This is an excellent analysis: insightful and to the point. I'd love to read a counter-analysis that can objectively argue against what I see as the central poi

This is an excellent analysis: insightful and to the point. I'd love to read a counter-analysis that can objectively argue against what I see as the central point here: "Blockchains still need good governance, but once you have good governance in place, you don't need a blockchain."

mariano54 9y ago
Here's a thought: I don't think it's black or white, governance solved or not solved. I think it's varying degrees of decentralization in governance. Try to come up with a system that has more decentralized governance than Bitcoin. The core developers in bitcoin don't have all the power. Coinbase doesn't have all the Power. Each user doesn't have all the power. Miners either (if they abuse their power, POW function can be changed) So basically while bitcoin governance is not perfectly decentralized, its much better than anything else. You can try to come up with a system where people vote. But the votes have to be collected and analyzed somewhere, centrally. So you still have central governance. So yes, while 100% solving governance would make bitcoin useless, bitcoin can improve governance (compared to federal Reserve, for example), while providing a lot of value from this decentralization.