3 ms·
I dunno, remember Parity (who were very big players and leading devs in eth at the time) wanting a fork to recover contract funds and it was plainly rejected by
by casi18 5y ago
I dunno, remember Parity (who were very big players and leading devs in eth at the time) wanting a fork to recover contract funds and it was plainly rejected by the rest of the community.
That said im also not really sure what you would be asking for as a change to the process? Anyone is welcome to join the discussions, propose changes, defend them, code them.
What would make it "grown up" and mature in your eyes? Also what "one party" are you talking about, a person? organisation? There are multiple eth client teams, and London has been one of the most discussed hard-forks there has been, 1559 has been in discussion and development for a few years now.
Im genuinely interested what would have to happen for you to see it as democratic? is it a question of sybil resistance? funding for teams?
- londons_explore 5y agoI think the project founders would need to distance themselves from the project (or at least announce they would no longer be decision makers), and have a bunch of different people try to take the project in different technical and idealistic directions, with some failing and some succeeding. If the project survives that, you can have a lot more confidence the project can resolve disputes with no key members being vital to the process.