> Which policy are we referring to? * BIP 141 version bits and BIP 148 as a voting mechanism: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#de

> Which policy are we referring to? * BIP 141 version bits and BIP 148 as a voting mechanism: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#deployment https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawi... and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawi... * core developer votes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support * posturing and maneuvering: https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-run-bip-148-until-segwit-is-fully-activated https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-ru... > It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting. Just because the voting mechanisms are generally informal if we exclude the formal BIP voting process, that doesn't make them not voting mechanisms. I'll grant you that the politics of Bitcoin can be chaotic and hard to follow (this is intentional), but in times of crisis, the obfuscated leadership structure usually emerges from the darkness. Another example is what happened in the 2013 crisis, where light was cast on where the power in Bitcoin truly lied: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-... . In this example, a couple devs took charge and had the miners abandon the longest chain. If all these things are not politics to you, in that they are not specifically about governance, power, or voting, again we'll have to disagree. I am definitely not saying "everything human is political" so again we can drop that straw man.