Mike Hearn in an AMA on r/btc 7 month ago about Bitcoin Cash:
"... Some things are being overlooked. If history repeated itself that would be a crying shame.
Hard forking is an implementation mechanism, not a governance mechanism. Governance is a process, and often an institution, for arriving at a decision. A hard fork is just the software event that makes it real.
I note with some alarm that Bitcoin Cash is planning a timed hard fork in just one month, with no attempt to measure support or whether people are ready or even agree. The content is not going to be controversial in this community now, but a lot of organisations would find it hard to schedule and test a software upgrade on one month's notice. There's a risk that miners who do upgrade will be split onto a minority chain by accident even if everyone intends to upgrade, and have to roll back, making them even more conservative than they already are.
Governance was one of the causes of the split and so needs the most analysis and change. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing that at the moment. Multiple competing implementations is what we tried with Bitcoin XT and it didn't work. Ultimately the internet is a lawless place, and a sufficiently committed group will always be able to wipe out any nodes they disagree with to prevent people from expressing their opinions. Formalised governance mechanisms can help avoid this by coordinating a group decision in ways that can't be so trivially attacked, and if you look at Ethereum, they have the Ethereum Foundation and other ways to do it. I think that would help a lot.
Right now I don't see anything that would prevent a repeat of what happened before, especially given the underlying psychological causes of the Core/Cash divide."
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/89z483/ama_ask_mike_anything/dwul86v/?st=jozvrskv&sh=64c8404a
No comments:
Post a Comment