|
|
|
|
|
by Andrew_Quentin
4091 days ago
|
|
So the governance structure you have identified was for two individuals in some position of "power" to voluntarily decide to take a certain action because they see it in their best interest overall? They could have just as well, seeing as they had the longer chain, decided to continue working on that chain, but they voluntarily decided otherwise. In the process, validating the inbuilt incentives of bitcoin. The decision therefore wasn't "independent", but reached by consensus and further supported by everyone else. Had there been some disagreement, for example if what the devs were proposing was not seen by the two "powerful individuals" as being in their best interest, then matters could have developed far differently. So, what exactly requires trust in all of this? |
|