[twblalock]

Bitcoin is supposed to be a currency, so there are many non-technical aspects of it that need to be properly handled. If the people working on the code take it upon themselves to make the non-technical decisions too, they need to be held responsible for the outcome.

This really gets at the heart of my dislike for cryptocurrency -- most proponents believe it's supposed to be decentralized and free from the control of government, but it's actually centralized under the control of a small group of unelected programmers (who seem to misunderstand how human societies, currencies, and contracts actually work), and there is no recourse when they make bad decisions except to fork the blockchain and the code. It's really a step backwards in terms of governance compared to, say, fiat currency with democratic governance. This applies to most cryptocurrencies I've seen, not just bitcoin.

[ericb]

Take a look at Tezos when it comes out. It tries to solve the governance problem with built-in governance and a system for promotion based on the will of the stakeholders.

[icebraining]

It's not, though; the developers can write the code, but they can't force people to upgrade.

[wmf]

They can withhold features that people want by refusing to code them, which is what one of the controversies is about.

[vertex-four]

But other people can code them, and people as a whole can choose what software they want to run?

[twblalock]

If some large exchanges upgrade, and some don't, the consequences are similar to those of a code fork. Suddenly the currency becomes split into two different currencies.

[omarchowdhury]

Fiat currencies are not under democratic governance. Central banks control them, and you cannot cast a ballot on what your central bank should do.