Bitcoin Forum

I had a thought...

We have developers, which are, in my opinion, the equivalent of the legislative branch.
We have miners & nodes, which could be compared to the executive branch in bitcoin's design.
Yet, we have nothing like a judicial branch.
Someone may think that we don't need a third seat of power, but we obviously do.
In general, a tripolar system would appear much more stable than current rope-a-dope situation between developers and miners.

I propose, if not a judicial branch, but at least something like a Supreme Court for bitcoin.
The number of people on such Court is debatable, maybe just three or five, no need for nine.
All must have impeccable credentials as impartial defenders of decentralized bitcoin cause.

Candidates: Andreas Antonopoulos (sure), Nick Szabo (sure), probably Bram Cohen, maybe Don Tapscott (not sure), Satoshi would be nice to have, but he/she is unavailable.
I am sure i did not think of someone, but if this idea takes hold, we can think of many possible candidates.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary.. collating data of bosses and workers expenses
devs=workers.. being janitors maintaining the current company and making new product proposals...

secretary needs bosses approval otherwise secretaries work just ends up in the orphan bin, wasting secretaries time if it doesnt meet bosses standards.
devs need the bosses consent to use the new proposals and expand the company. or reject it and keep the company going in the same direction.

right now dynamic workers made a proposal to the bosses and just leaving it to the bosses to consent or not. no threats no deadlines
right now core workers made a proposal to the bosses andmad threats to support their proposal or they will initiate a strike if the bosses dside to go with dynamics proposal

that's not how I see it.

thats because the core devs have gone soft and avoided talking to the bosses and instead asked the secretary to change the company.

however even going soft the workers are now waiting for the secretary to unofficially find out what the bosses want to do before the secretary tells the workers what's acceptable. and now the workers are finger point at the secretary blaming the secretary for not approving their new product straight away.

core shot themselves in the foot by thinking they could bypass the bosses/nodes by going soft. they thought they dont need boos/node approval..
but are now having a finger pointing exercise blaming the pools.. whn it was core that gave pools the vote knowing that pools wont vote without knowing the nodes could handle it and accept it...
the pools wont risk having their work orphaned by nodes, just because core threaten them

I agree partially.
But in Bitcoin there is a big difference in comparison to a company: The boss (=nodes) is divided into numerous singularities (yes, we love decentralization!) who cannot make fast coordinated decisions -- and who, I assume, have too little insight to do so. So there is a vacuum of power, which is logically filled by the most skilled "workers".

Developers/miners duopoly is too unstable (rope-a-dope).
A three-prong structure with bitcoin's Supreme Court (judicial branch of bitcoin governance) would be much more stable, especially when there is a schism/dispute.