A few weeks ago, in a post entitled, “The Politics of Non-Political Money,” we talked about a Bitcoin blocksize discuss as surfacing “politics” in a Bitcoin ecosystem. Important custom and program growth projects need people of manifold views and skeleton to come together over common standards and code. My topic in that post was simply that good function is good politics since it builds credibility. Some differ, and many—it should be no surprise—aren’t holding my advice. But a precedents set in a blocksize discuss are critical for a destiny of Bitcoin, for other cryptocurrencies, and for identical projects that might offer alternatives to bureaucratic financial and executive systems.
The politics are intense, there are ways that Bitcoin governance is like government, and proposals to flare a program are kind of like inherent amendments. But I’m increasingly gentle meditative of Bitcoin governance as a marketplace phenomenon. Specifically, groups with incompatible visions are competing to win a preference of Bitcoin miners and nodes, so that their vision, if it prevails, can lift a Bitcoin plan forward.
Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, has stepped brazen recently as a clever disciple for Bitcoin Classic and a 2MB blocksize. He cites 4 competitors to