4 ms·
Eh, it's not as easy to influence the policies and direction of bitcoin's core client as you might think. It requires consensus building, which is nowhere near
by plankers 8y ago
Eh, it's not as easy to influence the policies and direction of bitcoin's core client as you might think. It requires consensus building, which is nowhere near as easy as enforcing consensus on the state of the blockchain. It's a messy process, involving much debate and hashing out (pun intended) of details. See here[1] for more.
If it is a commodity, then it's one that's awfully easy to spend on whatever random bullshit I come across on the internet.
[1]https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/ https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
- lozenge 8y agoIt takes a concerted effort but it's definitely possible, especially by those who moderate forums and subreddits. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin were all successful in doing so, although they each only captured part of the original Bitcoin market cap.
- plankers 8y agoYou seem to be confusing the moderation of non-technical forums with the process of achieving consensus between experts on highly technical issues. My apologies if this isn't the case. The bitcoin forks you name have experts working on their development, true. But these developers represent a small fraction of the number of contributors to the bitcoin core client. As the number of people increases, so too does the difficulty of coming to consensus on the direction of development.
- lozenge 8y agoYou only need a couple of developers to fork, and they aren't necessarily motivated by those highly technical issues. After that, by moderating forums you can bring the users, which brings the valuation.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoRight. I feel like anyone that believes the “truly decentralized” aspect of Bitcoin is being intentionally obtuse.