So? The miners invested in the network. Users just use it. They can vote by going elsewhere, or invest in the network for a vote.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So? The miners invested in the network. Users just use it. They can vote by going elsewhere, or invest in the network for a vote.
That makes no sense. Without people using it and creating demand there would be no value in mining it.
People can and do use it. But why do they need a vote? That makes no sense. They are not forced to use it. They can leave whenever they want.
On that basis why do miners need a vote? Nobody is forcing them to mine. Why does anyone need a vote?
Yeah sure why not? Stakeholders simply make their demands of the market and leave if it doesn't deliver. Having a voting process essentially guarantees a central authority to count and enforce the votes.
Choosing to participate or not participate is a form of voting.
Not necessarily. You can implement these things in code - that is how these things activate anyway. Of course one could say that the person/people that create the code and set the parameters could be seen as a point of centralisation. I don't think there is a simple solution!
Agreed. In the end, the people who have invested the most time, money and energy into it will fight the most for it and enforce their vision. I believe this is why you see the miners, the exchanges, etc. having these meetings and pushing proposals forward.
Yes and since they have the most invested they are likely frustrated by the current stalemate even more than the regular user.