Bitcoin governance sucks!

[RawDog]

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.

Yes exactly ! What the hell is this guy even going on about ? CEO ?? Do you know what a CEO is ?
The remarkable new system is already here and who exactly do you refer to when you say we are not working constructively and together ?
Mess ?? What mess ? What are you even on about ?

I think he is on about your mama. 

[Ryan Dugan]

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.

You have no idea what you talking about. Please stop using bitcoin. Its not ment for people like yourself.
So you want to be co trolled and governed ? Wow you must be a communist supporter.

[neochiny]

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 want Satoshi then. If it's him, bitcoin having a "CEO"/someone to direct and lead, then I personally have no problem with that and will definitely support him. 
If you can bring him out,that is.
Otherwise, bitcoin is fine as it is.

[CraigWrightBTC]

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 the bitcoins is not need CEO, it is just needs developers, miners, and comunity and bitcoin is not corporation or government that needs leaders.
On bitcoin everything are very democratic and very very transparent and about problem in the bitcoin network depend on the miners and developer.

[Sundark]

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

If there were a CEO would you follow him and trust that his lead is the best possible way?
This is the problem with bitcoiners, all have their own opinions and refuse to acknowledge others.

[bL4nkcode]

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.

The reason why bitcoin was made is to avoid the interference of government, and bitcoin is unique because of decentralization and if government involve here and being centralized then bitcoin also sucks.

Simple logic dude If you don't like bitcoin then you are free to leave.

[deisik]

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

If there were a CEO would you follow him and trust that his lead is the best possible way?
This is the problem with bitcoiners, all have their own opinions and refuse to acknowledge others.

But the total majority of these dudes still seem to very much acknowledge profits that Bitcoin offers them. In this way, profits can be considered as a sort of common denominator that everyone understands (barring some die-hard individuals, of course). And they most likely forget about what they have been preaching for once they smell the scent of money...

In other words, when money talks nobody notices what grammar it uses

[Zadicar]

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.

The reason why bitcoin was made is to avoid the interference of government, and bitcoin is unique because of decentralization and if government involve here and being centralized then bitcoin also sucks.

Simple logic dude If you don't like bitcoin then you are free to leave.

You are very correct thats why satoshi made this invention because of this aims to avoid being controlled by the government and could able be free from taxations and more faster money transfers and full control on your money.I dont think that government could able to make bitcoin centralized and being controlled by them.

[chixka000]

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

If there were a CEO would you follow him and trust that his lead is the best possible way?
This is the problem with bitcoiners, all have their own opinions and refuse to acknowledge others.

Of course not, No one should allow everybody to follow a certain person especially if that certain person who act like the boss don't even contribute from the community aside from bringing too much amount on his pocket. All of us has our opinions yet we do not always refused and never acknowledge yes we do just like you do(you are a bitcoin user right). For those who refuse to are IMO those who understand its concept

[DooMAD]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, to the people who do mistakenly believe that having a CEO would be a good idea, I ask firstly:  

Do you honestly think there would be any less controversy and debate over who the CEO should be / how they should be selected / what the eligibility criteria should be / how long they should hold the position for / under what circumstances could they be overruled / what precautions would need to be in place to avoid bribery or lobbying / etc, in contrast to how we should approach scaling?  I can envision those particular arguments raging for just as long, if not longer.  Rather than speeding things up, I suspect it would bog down the project for years to come.

Then, secondly, once we theoretically got all that sorted:

How do you encourage (or force) all network participants, including those securing the blockchain, to only run code in accordance with the wishes of this supposed CEO?  Aside from making the project closed source (which wouldn't stick because those who don't want to conform still have our current open source code), you would have to restrict the code that the network would deem compatible, for example, ignoring blocks mined by alternative clients, which would immediately result in a hard fork.  The CEO could make any decisions they like and take the project in whatever direction they choose, but you can't make everyone else tag along for the ride.  People would keep running the existing code if they don't agree with having a CEO or simply don't agree with what the CEO wants.

So along with my prior post, where I point out that it's a horrible idea that runs completely contrary to the ethos we operate in, it's also important to note that you really haven't thought this through to conclusion at all.  Bitcoin cannot and should not have a CEO.  It's lunacy.

[deisik]

So along with my prior post, where I point out that it's a horrible idea that runs completely contrary to the ethos we operate in, it's also important to note that you really haven't thought this through to conclusion at all.  Bitcoin cannot and should not have a CEO.  It's lunacy.

The matter is not tied to CEO (or lack thereof)

We got stuck with the current system of updating Bitcoin and developing it any further. The idea of consensus may be perfect for a solid project, but it doesn't seem to work very nice in respect to an actively developing one (or the one which requires active development right now). If Bitcoin weren't a currency with billions of dollars invested but some purely software project (say, a text editor), there wouldn't be any problem with forking it into many separate projects since people could safely use the previous versions. But this is not possible with Bitcoin just because hard forking it will crash the whole system

[ice098]

How come that bitcoin governance sucks if no one is governing or managing it in the first place? Bitcoin network never belongs to someone and no one owns it. Bitcoin network is compose of bitcoin users, buyers, and investors that is why it is still alive right now. If you hate the way bitcoin's treating you right now, you just have to simply quit on doing it and find other cryptocurrencies that doesn't suck at all.

[dothebeats]

It is through criticisms, feedbacks, "fighting" and such wherein we could reach consensus. It is a great thing—at least for me—since apart from the ideas that were laid on he table, new ideas might spawn by combining or modifying each idea and combine as one. It's really not essential for a network of capable individuals to have a governing body to decide which goes what and what goes what; all we need is discussion—be it petty fighting or whatever catastrophe it is—to generate even better ideas that were already presented. Bitcoin is really designed to be a chaos, lol, and you should think about that thoroughly.

[kryptqnick]

Calm down. I guess the governance will inevitable come sooner or later but this will destroy a part of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is a currency which you can use anonymously and without paying any taxes. Why does the government has to know the money we have if we can't really know about their sums, houses and stuff? Bitcoin brings some freedom to all of us.

[RawDog]

Calm down. I guess the governance will inevitable come sooner or later but this will destroy a part of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is a currency which you can use anonymously and without paying any taxes. Why does the government has to know the money we have if we can't really know about their sums, houses and stuff? Bitcoin brings some freedom to all of us.

The very next step we will see is Blockstream lowering their strangely declared: '95%' = consensus.  Once they really need the SegWit to be implemented, this definition of 'consensus' will be lowered to 85%.  Then, if they fail that, they will just lower it a bit more until they get the 'consensus' they are looking for.  Trust me, Blockstream is going to have their altcoin by changing the protocol any way they like.  Blockstream runs the show.