Topic: Bitcoin governance sucks! - page 3. (Read 2282 times)

Technically speaking there is no need to even have any form of governance or development, there is no real necessary need to have anyone developing it beyond people wanting for Bitcoin to be developed more. If there was no desire, Bitcoin would carry on without any issues being fixed and no-one would have to worry about being governed.

Consensus is a terrible system, but there are no good alternatives. A large majority of forms of governance suck ass.

I think, you are obviously wrong here with your plans. Apparently you don't understand anything about Bitcoin and the very reason why it is valuable at all: decentralization. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and stay with fiat. Good luck with it.

It's not the first time that I find you engaging in nonsensical gutterspeak. Please at least try to think a bit more, before screaming around utter nonsense.

While you strictly demand harmony and consensus for Bitcoin, you seem to have problems finding it for yourself. That said Bitcoin has made great progress technologically and economically in the last years as a decentralized system.

ya.ya.yo!

Pissing contests will continue until one side gives up or gives in.
This is how most human governance systems work.
It will either be a congress with discussions and fighting and slow change or
a dictatorship with changes at the whim of a glorious leader.

The model is proved to work perfectly since 8 years of track records. The decentralization is the key success of Bitcoin, if you want a CEO to manage it...you will transform it into a bank and nobody want that.

People will always disagree on some topics, but this is the human nature.

I would rather have bitcoin the way it is rather than having a CEO or anything like it.  You do realise that you can leave bitcoin at anytime if it annoys you that much ?  

decentralisation is here to stay, and all those who love freedom will choose a decentralised environment over a controlled one.

I agree and disagree. the major decisions need to be centralized because these guys are all have a pissing contest. The rest that is decentalize is working fine. Stop the pissing contests.

It's not the governance model itself that sucks, but peoples' understanding of it.  If you feel dissenting views or alternative implementations are a threat, you need to rethink your stance.  The bigger threat is centralised development and users having no alternative but to run the only "approved" code available.  If all developers were forced to agree, that means all users would have no choice but to agree as well.  There should be no "harmony" in this regard, because that's far more dangerous in the long run.

Can everyone please get the concept into their heads that alternatives and choice are not only a good thing, but a vital thing.  Dissent is our safety net.  Never think you're better off without it.

For Bitcoin to truly remain trustless, we can't place trust in a centralised group (and definitely not a CEO).  It's down to the users who secure the network to determine what code they want to run.  Not a single group deciding for everyone what that code should be.  If there's no alternative, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with and you should just abandon the whole damn thing.

If you don't want the "open wild, wild west of consensus", go play with Ripple or some other bankster crapcoin where you don't get a choice about what the code does.  But stop trying to force that warped mentality on the rest of us.

I love the Wild, Wild West! You could ride a horse around all day, rob a bank, shoot anyone that pisses you off, hang around a saloon all night gambling while getting drunk and grab a whore on your way upstairs to pass out. You want Bitcoin to be a church social, or what?

join LN and have atleast 7 types of fee's and the ability to chargeback the entire contents of the multisig even when the close session has been broadcast. (CSV revoke codes)

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Changes in the protocol only happen when overwhelming necessary. 
Or would you prefer a system where I am in charge? I think today I want to impose a new fee that I receive. No, wait... two fees!

bitcoin doesnt need a CEO

but the boysclub of core need to stop being selfish and circlejerking in their club and learn things like
consensus
compromise
community
co-operation
coexistance

it shouldnt be too hard the first 2 letters of the words are the first 2 letters of their brand name

and dont play games saying core are open to be on the same level playing ground with other implementations.
they chose the word CORE. because they want to be at the centre

The whole point of bitcoin is to provide people a currency that have no central governance. If you don't like it simply don't use it.

No it isn't, that is how the system works.
Go back and learn why Satoshi designed Bitcoin this way.

If you want a CEO, go to Paypal.

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.