Bitcoin governance sucks!

[mikewirth]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

[AgentofCoin]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal.  

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

No it isn't, that is how the system works.
Go back and learn why Satoshi designed Bitcoin this way.

If you want a CEO, go to Paypal.

[steven0021]

The whole point of bitcoin is to provide people a currency that have no central governance. If you don't like it simply don't use it.

[franky1]

bitcoin doesnt need a CEO

but the boysclub of core need to stop being selfish and circlejerking in their club and learn things like
consensus
compromise
community
co-operation
coexistance

it shouldnt be too hard the first 2 letters of the words are the first 2 letters of their brand name

and dont play games saying core are open to be on the same level playing ground with other implementations.
they chose the word CORE. because they want to be at the centre

[wxa7115]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

[RodeoX]

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Changes in the protocol only happen when overwhelming necessary. 
Or would you prefer a system where I am in charge? I think today I want to impose a new fee that I receive. No, wait... two fees!

[franky1]

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Changes in the protocol only happen when overwhelming necessary.  
Or would you prefer a system where I am in charge? I think today I want to impose a new fee that I receive. No, wait... two fees!

join LN and have atleast 7 types of fee's and the ability to chargeback the entire contents of the multisig even when the close session has been broadcast. (CSV revoke codes)

[QuestionAuthority]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

I love the Wild, Wild West! You could ride a horse around all day, rob a bank, shoot anyone that pisses you off, hang around a saloon all night gambling while getting drunk and grab a whore on your way upstairs to pass out. You want Bitcoin to be a church social, or what?

[DooMAD]

It's not the governance model itself that sucks, but peoples' understanding of it.  If you feel dissenting views or alternative implementations are a threat, you need to rethink your stance.  The bigger threat is centralised development and users having no alternative but to run the only "approved" code available.  If all developers were forced to agree, that means all users would have no choice but to agree as well.  There should be no "harmony" in this regard, because that's far more dangerous in the long run.

Can everyone please get the concept into their heads that alternatives and choice are not only a good thing, but a vital thing.  Dissent is our safety net.  Never think you're better off without it.

For Bitcoin to truly remain trustless, we can't place trust in a centralised group (and definitely not a CEO).  It's down to the users who secure the network to determine what code they want to run.  Not a single group deciding for everyone what that code should be.  If there's no alternative, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with and you should just abandon the whole damn thing.

If you don't want the "open wild, wild west of consensus", go play with Ripple or some other bankster crapcoin where you don't get a choice about what the code does.  But stop trying to force that warped mentality on the rest of us.

[karawantbtc]

I agree and disagree. the major decisions need to be centralized because these guys are all have a pissing contest. The rest that is decentalize is working fine. Stop the pissing contests.

[calkob]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal.  

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

I would rather have bitcoin the way it is rather than having a CEO or anything like it.  You do realise that you can leave bitcoin at anytime if it annoys you that much ?  

decentralisation is here to stay, and all those who love freedom will choose a decentralised environment over a controlled one.

[chesatochi]

I agree and disagree. the major decisions need to be centralized because these guys are all have a pissing contest. The rest that is decentalize is working fine. Stop the pissing contests.

The model is proved to work perfectly since 8 years of track records. The decentralization is the key success of Bitcoin, if you want a CEO to manage it...you will transform it into a bank and nobody want that.

People will always disagree on some topics, but this is the human nature.

[AgentofCoin]

I agree and disagree. the major decisions need to be centralized because these guys are all have a pissing contest. The rest that is decentalize is working fine. Stop the pissing contests.

Pissing contests will continue until one side gives up or gives in.
This is how most human governance systems work.
It will either be a congress with discussions and fighting and slow change or
a dictatorship with changes at the whim of a glorious leader.

[yayayo]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

I think, you are obviously wrong here with your plans. Apparently you don't understand anything about Bitcoin and the very reason why it is valuable at all: decentralization. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and stay with fiat. Good luck with it.

It's not the first time that I find you engaging in nonsensical gutterspeak. Please at least try to think a bit more, before screaming around utter nonsense.

While you strictly demand harmony and consensus for Bitcoin, you seem to have problems finding it for yourself. That said Bitcoin has made great progress technologically and economically in the last years as a decentralized system.

ya.ya.yo!

[MingLee]

Technically speaking there is no need to even have any form of governance or development, there is no real necessary need to have anyone developing it beyond people wanting for Bitcoin to be developed more. If there was no desire, Bitcoin would carry on without any issues being fixed and no-one would have to worry about being governed.

Consensus is a terrible system, but there are no good alternatives. A large majority of forms of governance suck ass.

[kidmodo]

The whole point of bitcoin is to provide people a currency that have no central governance. If you don't like it simply don't use it.

true, if the government interferes too much, there will be taxes and a lot of things that trouble, then what's the difference with other financial institutions

[davis196]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

Why are you so angry?

There are some issues,but i`m sure they are going to be resolved.

Who do you suggest for a CEO?

[pinkflower]

For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.

Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network.  People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit.  This is a damn mess.  We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal. 

Is it the case there can be no noble CEO?  I don't buy that theory.

A decentralized structure of governance was meant to be messy. It is either you love it or hate it and with BTC this is what you get. You are always free to go elsewhere if you do not like it. You could also decide not to take part in the political side of the community.

[Xester]

When we speak of governance we speak of centers. The word bitcoin governance means that there are people who are controlling and has a rule on bitcoin. Bitcoin is in fact free from any governance, thats why we are all saying it is a decentralized system because it has no center an no one is controlling it. So to say that governance sucks is not the right term but the term should be " bitcoin is free from governance".

[Positid]

The fact that it's decentralized, we do not have CEO here, we are our own boss and without CEO will give us full privilege to spend our bitcoins in a way we prefer, that's how simple it is because you cannot the system that was designed to be this way.