No2x: bad governance model

Summary

The context criticizes the approach of certain Bitcoin companies attempting to enforce protocol changes through declarations rather than consensus, undermining Bitcoin's decentralized governance.

Abstract

The provided content expresses a critical view of the governance model proposed by some Bitcoin companies, exemplified by the New York Agreement (NYA). It argues that these companies are mistakenly using their influence to impose new rules on the Bitcoin network, rather than proposing changes and building consensus. This approach is seen as a failure to uphold Bitcoin's core value proposition of decentralization. The author, referencing Adam Back, emphasizes that any attempt by a few entities to control Bitcoin's governance contradicts the fundamental principle of a decentralized network. The article suggests that these companies, since the time of the Bitcoin XT proposal, have been trying to direct Bitcoin's evolution unilaterally, which is perceived as a form of bullying. The author stresses that the correct process is to create proposals and earn the support of the community, which is a challenging but necessary task to maintain the integrity of Bitcoin's governance.

Opinions

The opposition to the NYA hard fork is not due to a lack of participation or an exclusive invite list but stems from the incorrect approach of imposing changes rather than proposing them.
The distinction between an agreement and a proposal is crucial and has been consistently overlooked or ignored by some influential Bitcoin industry players.
The author views the actions of these companies as a form of bullying, using their influence to force changes in the Bitcoin protocol instead of seeking genuine consensus.
There is a concern that these companies falsely claim to represent a majority or critical mass of the community, which is not reflective of the broader Bitcoin ecosystem.
The author suggests that the correct approach is to propose changes and lead by example, allowing the community to reach a consensus organically.
The high bar for consensus is intentional and necessary to uphold the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, and any change should be subject to this rigorous standard.
Despite repeated explanations, these companies continue to employ the same problematic strategy they have used since the Bitcoin XT letter, indicating a lack of understanding or a deliberate disregard for the proper governance process.

No2x: bad governance model

If a few companies, or even a cluster of companies, can effectively take control of bitcoin governance, and force a change — that is a definitional failure of Bitcoin’s decentralised value proposition in itself.

— Adam Back

I think this is one of the least understood reasons for opposing the NYA announced hard fork in November. The opposition is too often misinterpreted as some sort of sour grapes. That because the opponent wasn’t leading the meeting or a participant in it, that it wasn’t the right sort of agreement.

The difference is not in the participants in the meeting, whether the invite list was closed or open, or even in the technical details of the plan. The difference is in whether the resulting product is an agreement or a proposal.

For 2 years now, this distinction has been something much of the Bitcoin industry has not understood or decided to deliberately ignore. Since the first letter supporting Bitcoin XT, a few of the larger startups in the space have believed they could direct the evolution of the Bitcoin protocol. But instead of creating proposals, trying to rally support for them and leading by example, they are declaring unilaterally that their companies and services will be operating with new Bitcoin rules and thus the rest of the Bitcoin ecosystem must come with them. The language in that original XT letter and the language in the New York Agreement is similar both in their declaration that they are moving forward with the changes regardless of everyone else and their claim to represent a majority or critical mass of the community.

This strikes me as a form of bullying. Yes those companies have influence in the ecosystem (as do miners and as do developers), but they should not use their influence to compel a change in the rules. Any group is welcome to propose a change, but the bar for moving forward with it is that the community must come to consensus. This is a high and difficult bar, and rightfully so.

This distinction has been explained many times to these industry companies, I know because I have been among those doing the explaining. But still they use the same type of agreement as the XT letter of 2 years ago.

Ask yourself why they don’t just make a proposal and try to build support for it.

Ask yourself why they choose the wording to make it clear that the decision has already been made.

Ask yourself if you should have listened to them 2 years ago.

Ask yourself if their Bitcoin is the Bitcoin you want.