Quote from: Jazmin Leslie on August 19, 2021, 07:11:35 AM

In the previous society, there was only one single power, all of which were centralized. However, this type of centralized power has not been eliminated for hundreds of years, so can it be that human beings cannot change the centralization by themselves?
So is decentralization a force majeure that exists like non-human resources?
It took ten years for Bitcoin, which was born in 2009, to start thinking about decentralization in terms of human development.At this point, I believe that decentralization is an inevitable way of development, and non-human resources can be reversed.

Yes, I very much agree with your point of view. Although Bitcoin has only been born for more than ten years, it has provided us with a brand new governance model. This is decentralized governance. Bitcoin continues to provide us with the idea of decentralized governance and also provides tools for decentralized governance. This is governance on the blockchain. At present, human society is changing from a centralized civilization to a decentralized civilization. Maybe this process will be very long, but it will definitely come.

Quote from: Ucy on August 19, 2021, 03:41:10 PM

Quote from: RainbowKun on July 12, 2021, 02:01:38 PM

6. Decentralization of community governance

In our daily work, most of our country or our company exists in the form of centralized governance. But it is completely different in the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin does not have a centralized organization to manage the entire ecology, but exists in the form of a community. In this community, there are different stakeholders. There is a core developer group, a miner group, a Bitcoin whale holder group, and a Bitcoin retail holder group. There is no centralized organization to manage these stakeholders, but everyone uniformly abides by the consensus mechanism of the Bitcoin community and spontaneously participates in the construction of the Bitcoin community. No single individual or collective can fully control Bitcoin. If someone wants to upgrade the Bitcoin network, they need to get the consensus of different stakeholders in the community. If there is no consensus, it is easy to cause the division of the community. This is the decentralization of community governance.

In regards to 6, you think it's going to be truely decentralized if you have only those you listed as "Stakeholders" governing the entire community? Wish you used etc after "Bitcoin retail holder group" , so people don't assume that's the number of "stakeholders" that will govern the entire Bitcoin Community, or people assuming if they don't belong to any of the groups they can't participate in governance whether they are qualified or not. I believe every honest participants should be able to participate in governance so we don't place too much barrier and risk centralizing governance. You can use merit/reputation system for quality control
Besides, the "groups should be made mainly of independent participants else we could have issues of collusion, centralized groups, or group managed by single entity due to mostly to not adhering to the important Bitcoin Principles

The stakeholders I am referring to here are not only the miners and core developer groups, but the most important group of Bitcoin holders. However, the current status of Bitcoin determines that governance can only be minimized, and it is difficult for most ordinary Bitcoin owners to truly participate in the governance of the Bitcoin ecosystem. This is also an important issue in the current Bitcoin ecosystem in my opinion.