Replying to nitesh

Not really imo. Getting opinions of people who aren't even qualified to give opinions is useless. I'm not advocating for a Vladimir Putin, but we need a small pool of people who can make sound technical decisions and get shit done. As the price keeps going up, we get more and more people into Bitcoin and all of them want to have a say in what happens inside of core and yet 99% of these people aren't even close to being qualified to having a say or opinion.

You cannot sit and wait to make everyone happy. It's just not going to happen.
Avatar
Hanshan 1y ago

So who's qualified to decide who's qualified?

I don't think you're understanding the nature of the problem. There's nobody I'm comfortable having that degree of control over the project.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

02
nitesh 1y ago

I didn't say it's one person. I said a pool of people. It could be 100 people or 500.

Soft forks don't need consensus of 1 million randos on twitter. It needs current and ex core devs, people who work on L2 protocols etc who we all know are qualified in making technical decisions.

We have to figure out how to build a pool of qualified people, I'm only proposing how we approach core development going forward.

Avatar
Hanshan 1y ago

Theres no qualifications that can be written and fairly applied without centralizing.

You're talking about forming a committee and coming up with criteria for membership in an exclusive governance circle.

to make a long story short,

its not gonna happen.

02
nitesh 1y ago

It already has happened. How do you think people get commit access to Bitcoin core? You contribute long enough to gain that power.

I'm sorry, I don't think Saylor or some podcastors are qualified to hinder Bitcoin's development by cutting funding from development and not letting scaling happen. Its unacceptable imo just because those assholes have a lot of money invested in Bitcoin and yell on CNBC.