883
edits
Changes
From Ravencoin Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search→25 Aug 2018 - Discord 2
We the users and holders have the authority by deciding what code to run
So if you say “trust the devs” the first question one needs to ask is “who? / which devs”
The way to flush that out is by discussion
Open and free discussion
There’s also no special authority for any other person - no ceo or founder or master node or author or dev has special power or authority
----
But main point is that this is open source — there is no authority
----
We don’t want to ever discourage discussion — especially over security related issues
----
All this project is is a group of people choosing to run code based on what they think Ravencoin means and what code is effective for that definition — every person has the right to discuss what they think that vision is or means
----
The term hoi polloi is funny but it’s the antithesis of what open source is about — there is no “commoners” or higher class of people
There’s no special category called developers
It’s not ideal to say that people should defer to devs — that’s got a lot of issues I can explain —
what if a new dev joins tomorrow and creates the code to change the supply to 5 trillion with an insta mine of 1 trillion to himself and burning all addresses bringing in R5?
Would you say “stay in your lane, don’t discuss forks”? Of course not - it’s not what the coin is
It’s super relevant and key to discuss things like hard forks — any hard fork changes the consensus mechanism and the rules which everyone on the network previously agreed to
So it’s really a big responsibility for every user to know and care what all code changes are
----
There’s also a HUGE difference between non technical people discussing technical matters and overall DESIGN matters
----
You won’t see me talking specific code almost ever — it’s not my area of expertise
But overall economics, functionality and design is an area of expertise I have for this coin — Andy one can develop expertise and have opinions on the direction — anyone can choose to listen or not - and run what they want based on a combo of vision and capabilities and functions with the specific code
----
Well this is why consensus is so important
Just something to plan for — for the future
----
We can all continually improve the quality of review of code changes
Bitcoin
Bitcoin system has worked best and that’s what Ravencoin is developed after
----
Bitcoin has made many leaps forward on this - there are lots of contributors and discussions
----
@name — well one thing is that there isn’t and shouldn’t be much of a line between “devs” and “the community” —- devs ARE the community and the community is devs in this project — there is no separate wall
----
You don’t need to just “speak with a Bitcoin dev” you can BE a Bitcoin dev by simply submitting code
Secret sauce of Bitcoin is no leaders
No authority
Consensus
Same with Ravencoin-
----
The system is working well as it is — I don’t see any problems at all — just giving thoughts on best practices and ideas for the future — there are several things we learned from this hard fork which can be improved on next time - mainly around communicating
----
There’s some bad habits from ICOS where people come in to protocol projects looking for leaders or thinking a central authority makes all decisions
----
It’s wise to plan for contentious forks
----
It’s wise to plan for contentious forks
----
And have healthy debate over all changes
----
Forks also present a risk — every code change presents a possibility of unforeseen consequences
== 14 Aug 2018 - Telegram ==
