Most companies, products, or organizations have a singular chairman who speaks for them. Whether a CEO, founder, or other open spokesperson; no such spokesman exists for bitcoin. What if it had one that was smart-contract-based?
Not carrying a spokesman is mostly a good thing since a bitcoin village afterwards stays decentralized and distributed. It doesn’t turn monolithic per political, economic, social, or even eremite ideology.
Bitcoin isn’t tranquil by any singular chairman or organisation of individuals. It has no gatekeepers who confirm what information to share and what to censor. Furthermore, a decentralized ecosystem eliminates both a injustice of energy by people and singular points of weakness, both of that are prevalent in centralized projects.
There are drawbacks to not carrying a mouthpiece, though. When a bitcoin village needs to promulgate in one transparent voice, it doesn’t do so effectively, possibly among a members or with a outward world.
For instance, on Aug 17, 2016, a village woke adult to find a summary on Bitcoin.org that alerted miners, especially, that state-sponsored actors were formulation to conflict a soon-to-be-released Bitcoin Core program upgrade. The warning read:
“Not being clever before we download binaries could means we to lose