Bitcoin [BTC]’s ‘poor/broken governance’ debate broken up by Adam Back, Jameson Lopp and Tuur Demeester

Ever since its inception, Bitcoin [BTC] has been the butt of many criticisms from different parties involved in the world of digital assets. This was again evidenced when Nic Carter, a Twitterati raised the age-old point that “Bitcoin has poor/broken governance”. In a series of tweets, Carter said:

“I remember when “Bitcoin has poor/broken governance” was a popular refrain and was used as justification to promote alternatives. Now it has become clear that:

– Every project that becomes significant experiences the same governance struggles

– Being hard to change is good”

He further opined that anyone who pushed the “broken governance” line has not promoted an alternative to fix the model. Carter’s tweets shot to fame in the crypto-world when Adam Back, the Chief Executive Officer [CEO] of Blockstream replied:

“Bitcoin does not have governance, and if it had governance it would not be Bitcoin. Governance meaning discretionary permissioning by groups of humans. Bitcoin has change process, but that is optimized for “no change”, other than backwards compatible, win-win tech improvements.”

Back’s statements were in accordance with Bitcoin’s mantra of adhering to transparency and maintaining transactions privacy. The only sort of ‘governance’ in the Bitcoin ecosystem followed the Byzantine General’s principle which ensures that ledger transparency during transactions is maintained.

Adam Back was not the only famous luminary who joined in on the Twitter thread as he was followed by Tuur Demeester, the Founding Partner at Adamant Capital and Jameson Lopp, the creator of Satoshi.info. Demeester pointed out to a medium article by Lopp that elucidated on who controlled the Bitcoin Core. In Lopp’s piece, he had mentioned ‘Trust no one’ mantra as there were too many people in the ecosystem right now. The article said:

“While there are a handful of GitHub “maintainer” accounts at the organization level that have the ability to merge code into the master branch, this is more of a janitorial function than a position of power. If anyone could merge into master it would very quickly turn into a “too many cooks in the kitchen” scenario. Bitcoin Core follows principles of least privilege that any power bestowed to individuals is easily subverted if it is abused.”

The post Bitcoin [BTC]’s ‘poor/broken governance’ debate broken up by Adam Back, Jameson Lopp and Tuur Demeester appeared first on AMBCrypto.