Topic: Bitcoin doesn't need governance: Bitcoin is governance. - page 2. (Read 1979 times)

yea, still waiting for the "mass" tho.

havent even seen them wall street boys with their "blockchain technology". ^^

so guess its just the wind talking here.

Merchants are only irrevelant for now because their position in current bitcoin economy is not strong.
I can foresee, in the future as they grow in numbers and bitcoin will change its status from investment/method asset to currency - power will shift to their side.

lol because banks and centralized govs do not already fund most of terrorism globally, with fiat, suitcases and hidden accounts in tax havens..

so sry but gtfo with your statist fud.

bitcoin is perfect. bitcoin is freedom. bitcoin is governance. bitcoin is us. bitcoin is ours.

it could be better for bitcoin if got some surveillance from central states or countries or governments will be more accepted and less terrorist crime connected as decentralized it  is now its just a way of money too but not very fantastic into the beauty of it sometimes the number its good but the ideological dependence or independence its too much

And ultimately, people can approve or disapprove by spending or not their coins, using or not any so-called service, whilst speculators (most bitcoin holders) speculates as per the longest chain to make it valid, hence valuable.

So miners and any corporations depend upon Bitcoin holders to use their infrastructures. Devs are in the middle trying to fix minor issues as they come.

If any power grab attempt from either, miners, corps or dev, they will loose (ergo: bye bye gavin. he is so done here).

Watch out for big mining farms, we seen what happened when Ghash.io almost had 50% of the network back then: drop in btc price and lots of pressure upon them to take out some hashrate..

Decentralized consensus means you wont be able to critically modify Bitcoin without 95% of people agreeing.
Even if say 75% agree, you can be sure the 25% left will survive, and will probably kill the more centralized 75% on the long run.
Because market cap. Because decentralization. Because speculation. Because it is a big fuck to any sort of establishment.

So I agree Bitcoin is governance.
We are just part of something bigger, that cant be highjacked by anyone because we obviously never will reach 95% consensus because of its decentralize-ness and the so many divergent interests at this point.

It is kind of an alchemistic balance between everyone that depends on the others to survive.

BEAUTIFUL

true
Bitcoin doesn't need governance: but governance needs Bitcoin 

There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show.

i've applied logic, they have more power than a bunch of a guys running a full node, and since there are even less people running a full node than miners and merchants, you have the result...

The miners will go with the client the nodes adopt.

Miners will vote which client they prefer.
The merchants can approve or disapprove the miners decision by accepting or not accepting the resulting coins.

 

Where did you get this idea from?

apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free

there is no real consensus

We all to gather decide which implementations needed to Bitcoin and they must be implemented in Bitcoin Core only. So No Fork! No Fear!! No Panic Selling!!!

I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end.

Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on.

I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  

Well i still think there's space for improvement. Just look what mess we got ourselves in with this xt vs core debate..
Even tho bitcoin carries the idea of decentralisation, i still think we need some sort of it, just to clear debates like this one fast out of the way.

As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.

If it were that simple life would be great, but systems evolve and unfortunately need humans to build them.

The point is, why do people seemed to be a government.
Like telling us what to do

hmmmm so whats the point?