I have been absent from this forum for some time, but I have been lurking, observing and learning. I caught up on some of the discussion on this thread. I want to thank everyone that is contributing, I really do appreciate the insights. I hope to contribute more as well and share some of my own thoughts.
@jonny1000 You say that strong consensus is required, in other words that everyone has to agree, this is represented by the ninety-five percent proof of work requirement. However, if that is the condition that is required in order to change any of the “consensus” rules within Bitcoin, then I am convinced that Bitcoin will be doomed to never change. Because “consensus” in this sense of the word is impossible amongst large groups of people, this is exactly why we need governance mechanisms for when large groups of people come together and organize. If this was not the case political philosophy would not even be a field of study, which it obviously is. There are no historical examples where a large group of people were able to achieve consensus and change the rules of any governance system.
Bitcoin does have a governance mechanism, my theory on how I think it works or at least should work, is that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, however in effect it is ruled through proxy because proof of work best aligns the incentive for the party that actually has the “vote”, the miners. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. In turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In other words the market rules Bitcoin, Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses.
I think that Core is presently subverting this governance mechanism, I can explain what I mean by this. Fundamentally the idea of a central and single reference client is untenable and completely incompatible with the founding principles of Bitcoin. Open source projects are essentially and in most cases necessarily dictatorships by definition, and this is certainly the case with Core, because of the veto powers that exist within such a GitHub project.
Therefore, the only way that the governance of such a project can be fair and free is for it to be distributed among many open source projects and development teams, which people can then freely choose from. For Core to take actions and make deals with certain pools and miners so that they specifically do not switch clients and only use Core, while promoting the idea that a hard fork by a competing development team is by definition an attack on Bitcoin, this conception is the greatest subversion of the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. Attempting to convince the people involved that they do not have this freedom of choice and that they have to essentially follow the “authority”, because of “consensus”. Taking away peoples freedom by convincing them that they do not have the choice, even modern democracies can be subverted in this fashion, by changing the underlying culture and understanding of the participants involved.
The ability to hard fork the protocol is the very mechanism that ensures the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol. Hard forks are the primary mechanism that keeps the power of any development team in check. This capability lies at the very heart of the freedom and voluntarism that Bitcoin represents.
With a hard fork people can choose to stay behind if they want, when they do not agree with the new rules that are being proposed. This ability represents peoples very freedom of choice and it should not be feared, but embraced, if twenty-five percent of Bitcoins participants do not want a particular rule then the chain should be able to split, satisfying both parties as long as they both think it was worth splitting the chain over these particular rule changes, since there will be negative consequences to splitting the chain, incentivizing everyone to get along. This can be referred to as “strong consensus”, however over time as pressure builds up and the issue becomes contentious enough such a split becomes justified and I am also convinced that over the long term this will be inevitable. The ability that Bitcoin has to split under this scenario has actually gracefully solved the age problem of the tyranny of the majority. People are not forced to follow the majority, they can simply split off or alternatively even adopt a different cryptocurrency and live under the rules that they choose. Therefore, the only way that true consensus can be achieved over continuous rule changes is through splitting the chain, this is the only way that all of the participants involved can remain truly free in terms of making their own choices without having to switch ledgers.
The absolutist conception of “consensus” in governance is so precarious, analogues can even be drawn with the psychology of fascism. That we all have to agree with each other for Bitcoin to be strong and for it to succeed, because it is the only one true cryptocurrency. Furthermore, that anyone opposing this “authority” of “consensus” must be the enemy and therefore must be attacked and censored. This type of mentality where anyone who opposes Core is attacking the network is deeply flawed and also approaches authoritarianism in its mentality. Obviously consensus among large groups of people is impossible, though the illusion is easier to maintain when there is a strong central authority that everyone can agree with.
There should not be one true chain. People have different ideologies and beliefs therefore they should be adopting different chains that best represents their own beliefs. Bitcoin has brought about the free competition of currency. Now we have a choice, the freedom of choice to choose what economic policy we choose to follow. There will be many different dominant cryptocurrencies just like how today there are many different dominant religions, ideologies, genres, philosophies and cultures. Cryptocurrency can also be a form of human expression, to think that we will all be able to find agreement around a single ledger to me does not seem realistic.
The governance mechanism of Bitcoin might be fundamentally flawed, however it is still too early to know whether this is the case, however I am confident that if that is the case then the solution to this problem already exists within the alternative cryptocurrencies. Maybe one of the greatest pressures that Bitcoin can face is from the competition of other cryptocurrencies. Though in many ways this is also a victory for Bitcoin and the tentative dream of Satoshi. So I feel good promoting, using and investing in more alternatives to Bitcoin. It is not that hard to hold multiple cryptocurrencies especially once you already own Bitcoin. Bitcoin might not end up being the dominant cryptocurrency of the future, however the dream that Satoshi has helped bring into the world is very much alive and thriving. Which is why I think that if Bitcoin continues to block the economic stream, restricting its growth. The flow of use, capital and utility will simply spill over into the best alternatives.
