Honestly curious to understand more from your perspective. Care to elaborate at all?
Discussion
It's a long and pretty boring conversation, and nobody's fault per se. But the phrase "tyranny of structurelessness" comes to mind. Incentives on the development side are not really aligned for longterm success IMO. Bitcoin's project structure is very much an experiment; basically every other major opensource effort has clear leadership structure (if not a BDFL). In bitcoin this would obviously be An Issue (unless there were multiple competing implementations), but the sclerotic and meandering development cycle demotivates talented devs all the same. I've spent five years working on a project that, in commercial settings, would have been merged within a month. It just gets really old.
Thanks for sharing your insights James. I definitely don't think it's boring. 🙏
I'm interested in doing more research into how hierarchy, as a coordination mechanism, naturally arises from decentralized / spontaneous order systems. Bitcoin as a project is indeed an experiment in how hierarchy emerges spontaneously absent a clearly defined leadership structure. Do you think there should be more effort within the community to promote spontaneous hierarchy instead of dismissing it as destructive centralization?
You mentioned competing implementations and I wonder if we could ever see private implementations competing with one another if the project ever gains substantial global adoption. 🤔
Thanks again ✌️
Do the recent developments regarding 'big rock' development priotities bring you any hope?