pull down to refresh
I know what you mean. But one must be wary of imposing "governance structures".
Because once you claim a "governance structure", you are trying to legitimize something that not everyone may have agreed to. At least the Core developers do not claim any sort of political legitimacy like a "governance structure" would attempt to claim. Core's dominance arises out of the game theory of switching costs and coordination equilibria, not from any sort of claimed political authority.
The problem with "governance" is that once "governance" is claimed, eventually some group will decide that they don't accept this governance. Then, we can go one of two ways:
- The "governance" group can attempt to force the non-compliant group to comply. In bitcoin, this probably won't be based on violence, but it could, if an alliance between this group and the state were to form. They could also try to use other forms of economic sanctions to enforce compliance.
- The "governance" group can let the non-compliers go their own way. But in that case, don't we have the exact same situation as we do now? Those who disagree with Core and go their own way.
I just think trying to solve these tricky issues with words like "governance" is a dangerous slope.
sometimes i think I am the only mofo here that still loves core
honestly I think they are doing a helll of a job and slowly moving in the right direction.
most important thing core is doing is getting all consensus code into one standalone library.(libbitcoinkernel )
this will enable more clients and weaken the power of core which is actually what core wants
I run Core as my node of choice. It is an amazing project. I don't think that prevents me from also observing that it would be nice if we had multiple strong, well maintained implementations of Bitcoin.
i don't have any problem with Core
but clearly, many do. I don't really know if their grievances are justified. I don't follow these issues closely enough.
I do know that I generally learn towards Core's side in the anti-spam debate
I run 3 core nodes. I am not an expert...
But I think the vast majority of the "criticism" of core is unwarranted. In other words don't listen to the twitter drones they just repeat the same BS over and over and have zero interest in anything to the contrary. It's way too much 'groupthink' that doesn't help.
Core imo has done a great job considering the overall situation and the challenge of changing software
While I fully agree with you, it is more complicated than that. The reason Core has such high market dominance is not solely because it has always delivered what users want.
Developing and maintaining an alternate implementation is a challenging task (probably because maintaining and developing Core I'd a challenging task). But there's also this thing where an implementation of Bitcoin really, really has to get it right.
...And how do we even know what getting it right means? At the moment, it kinda means coming to consensus with Core nodes.