Topic: . (Read 313 times)
I find this to be counter to the philosophy of decentralization and consensus. what you have described a representative democracy. These "authorized groups" or "committees" are corruptible and fallible, and are "trusted authorities". This kind of thing is exactly what Bitcoin promises to liberate us from.
You are correct that we need definite process by which to make decisions, but this process must avoid centralization and trusted authorities. We need a decentralized solution for arriving at consensus.
We need a process by which there are no representatives and there are no leaders, there is only a method by which all have a say and all have incentive to arrive at a consensus agreement. BIP69 worked perfectly well with the miners arriving first at 75% consensus and then finally at 95% consensus triggering the transition.
We need something similar but which allows for more than just the miners to have a say.
You are correct that we need definite process by which to make decisions, but this process must avoid centralization and trusted authorities. We need a decentralized solution for arriving at consensus.
We need a process by which there are no representatives and there are no leaders, there is only a method by which all have a say and all have incentive to arrive at a consensus agreement. BIP69 worked perfectly well with the miners arriving first at 75% consensus and then finally at 95% consensus triggering the transition.
We need something similar but which allows for more than just the miners to have a say.
Jump to: