So yeah, I'm definitely not "telling people it's a democracy". If anything, I want what we still delude ourselves into calling "democracy" in the outside world to be more like Bitcoin.
Perhaps I'm just reading it the wrong way because you're effectively calling consensus itself an oligarchy. To me that just feels perverse.
There are no benevolent oligarchies. Sooner or later they'll be initiating transfer of wealth into their own pockets by fair means or foul. Just more corrupt centralisation by another name.
Perhaps I'm just reading it the wrong way because you're effectively calling consensus itself an oligarchy. To me that just feels perverse.
There are no benevolent oligarchies. Sooner or later they'll be initiating transfer of wealth into their own pockets by fair means or foul. Just more corrupt centralisation by another name.
Okay, but calling the consensus mechanism a "free market of ideas" is also wrong! The clue's in the name... the Bitcoin protocol rules are designed to make eveyrone on the network participate in the same way. If the consensus mechanism was a genuine free market, there would be constant jockeying for position about which ruleset dominates. This is supposed to be a currency; how do you think the BTC exchange rate would respond if we changed dev teams every time someone starts shouting "FIRE!"?
Here's how I see it:
- Bitcoin development is a free market: submit a pull request and see how it is received
- The cryptocurrency development world is a free market: create a new coin, see how well it is received
- The consensus mechanism is not a free market. It is an emergency escape hatch, to be used against an infiltrated dev team, NOT for disrupting Bitcoin's direction with competing coin designs
You seem to subscribe to that last part: that there should be real conflict going on within the development of Bitcoin itself. Promoting that is dangerous, and it makes me wonder how invested you are in Bitcoin.