Re:No, Ethereum Name Service is still a clown show
by yanmaani on Thursday January 27, 2022 @09:03AM
(#30100669)
Yes, but that doesn't work if what you're voting on is consensus-critical (e.g. the ordering of blocks). If you're talking about other rule changes, sure. In practice, I think most would consider Bitcoin's sluggishness of rule changes to be a feature, not a bug. Because the process is not entirely deterministic, it is much harder for a bad actor to corrupt.
Re:No, Ethereum Name Service is still a clown show
by dane-pgp on Thursday January 27, 2022 @05:27PM
(#30107840)
> Because the process is not entirely deterministic, it is much harder for a bad actor to corrupt.
As in software, a lack of determinism means a lack of reproducibility, and without reproducibility it's harder to have consensus.
In particular, if bitcoin makes a rule change (or refuses to implement a rule change), such a decision lacks the transparency and accountability needed for good governance, because the bad actor can just say "Well, that's just how things worked out that time. Blame the RNG.".
I don't think this is a theoretical concern when it comes to a bad actor corrupting the bitcoin protocol development process.
But it's at least possible, from the protocol, to determine the balance of each address, and for each address to vote (with a message on the blockchain) for or against a given proposal.
Compare that to trying to determine which address "probably holds more influence", which seems like something you'd have to trust someone else's (off-chain) judgement on.