cryptowizard

3 ms·

1.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
Can you explain what's wrong with it?
2.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
"...replicating a structure (through organizational or version forking) does not completely address the hierarchy of the structure itself. While it certainly gives others a voice and accounts for fragmentation in the community, power i
3.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
Exactly. Bitcoin governance can still be called decentralized but there are still certain degrees of centralized control in decentralized systems (just look at the Internet). The political/organizational problem is hard to solve becaus
4.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
That's an interesting way of putting it. Scaling will always be a problem with monolithic records like you say. I have worked on a couple of distributed ledgers with sharding and these governance models seem to be more promising. Often
5.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
Bitcoin decision making is channeled down a funnel: Core Developers make suggestions and the Lead Developer (and those given commit access) sign off on those decisions. Those decisions are then voted for by miners who are (relatively) centr
6.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
Possibly. But you still need a Lead Developer to sign off on decision making. And high net worth individuals will have consolidated voting rights on those decisions. Perhaps if PoS is mixed with other development models?
7.
by cryptowizard 7y ago
If you have access to university libraries this academic article describes how Bitcoin production operates through centralized control points
8.
The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money(tandfonline.com)
124 points by cryptowizard 7y ago|314 comments