Evelyn Soto
Posted on
How does Bitcoin governance work?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Posted on
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Ohidul Islam -
William Parvez -
Max -
Vicky Sharp -
Once suspended, evelynsoto will not be able to comment or publish posts until their suspension is removed.
Once unsuspended, evelynsoto will be able to comment and publish posts again.
Once unpublished, all posts by evelynsoto will become hidden and only accessible to themselves.
If evelynsoto is not suspended, they can still re-publish their posts from their dashboard.
Once unpublished, this post will become invisible to the public and only accessible to Evelyn Soto .
They can still re-publish the post if they are not suspended.
Thanks for keeping Bitcompare Community safe. Here is what you can do to flag evelynsoto:
Unflagging evelynsoto will restore default visibility to their posts.
Top comments (1)
Bitcoin governance is a unique and decentralized process that ensures the network remains secure, efficient, and aligned with the interests of its participants. Unlike traditional financial systems or organizations, Bitcoin has no central authority or governing body. Instead, its governance is maintained through a blend of community consensus, software development, and cryptographic security.
1. Key Players in Bitcoin Governance
Bitcoin's governance involves various stakeholders, each playing a distinct role in the network's operation and decision-making process. Here are the main participants:
Each stakeholder has a different level of influence on Bitcoin's future development and operation. For instance, core developers write the actual code, but they cannot force anyone to run it. Instead, miners, nodes, and users decide whether to adopt these changes.
2. The Governance Model
Bitcoin follows a decentralized and consensus-based governance model, which can be broken down into the following stages:
a) Proposal Stage
1. Code Change Proposal: Core developers propose a change to Bitcoin’s source code. This could be a bug fix, an efficiency improvement, or a new feature.
2. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP): Major changes are documented in a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), which outlines the technical details, rationale, and implementation strategy for the update.
3. Community Discussion: Developers, miners, and other stakeholders discuss the proposal in public forums like GitHub, BitcoinTalk, or other developer channels.
b) Review and Testing Stage
1. Code Review: Other developers review the proposal to ensure there are no security flaws, inefficiencies, or risks.
2. Testnet Implementation: If the proposal is accepted, it is implemented on Bitcoin's testnet to check for bugs and compatibility issues.
c) Implementation and Adoption
1. Node Operators Decide: When the proposal is deemed ready, node operators (those who run the Bitcoin software) have the option to upgrade to the new version of the software.
2. Miners Signal Support: For certain changes, especially soft forks, miners signal their support by embedding a specific code in the blocks they mine.
3. User Adoption: Users (wallets, businesses, exchanges) update their software to be compatible with the latest version.
d) Consensus and Activation
1. Soft Fork: If a majority of miners (typically 90% or more) signal support for the update, it can be adopted as a "backward-compatible" change, meaning old nodes can still recognize the new rules.
2. Hard Fork: If consensus cannot be reached, a "hard fork" occurs, creating a split in the blockchain (as seen with Bitcoin Cash). This is a non-reversible change where older nodes become incompatible with the new version.
3. Governance Mechanisms
Bitcoin employs several mechanisms to ensure decentralized decision-making and avoid centralization risks.
a) Consensus Rules
Bitcoin's consensus rules dictate how blocks are created, validated, and added to the blockchain. Changes to these rules must be accepted by a majority of miners and nodes. For example, when Segregated Witness (SegWit) was introduced, it was implemented as a soft fork, requiring consensus from a majority of miners.
b) Off-Chain Governance
While decisions are made "on-chain" through consensus, many governance discussions happen "off-chain" through online forums, mailing lists, and conferences. Developers and the community debate ideas in GitHub pull requests or on social media.
c) Forking
If stakeholders cannot agree on a change, the network may experience a "hard fork." This happened in 2017 with Bitcoin Cash (BCH), where the community split over the block size debate. In a hard fork, two separate blockchains emerge, each with its own rules and community.
4. Example of Bitcoin Governance in Action
The SegWit Upgrade (2017)
Problem: Bitcoin faced issues with transaction congestion and high fees.
Proposed Solution: Developers proposed the Segregated Witness (SegWit) soft fork to reduce transaction sizes and increase capacity.
Process: After lengthy debate and review, miners began signaling support for SegWit. Once 95% of miners signaled support, SegWit was activated.
Impact: The upgrade reduced fees, increased block capacity, and laid the groundwork for future improvements like the Lightning Network.
5. Strengths and Weaknesses of Bitcoin Governance
6. Why Bitcoin’s Governance Matters
Bitcoin's governance system ensures that the network remains decentralized, secure, and free from the control of a single party. Unlike traditional financial systems controlled by central banks, Bitcoin relies on a community of stakeholders with aligned but independent interests. While this model has its inefficiencies, it is seen as a vital feature for maintaining the integrity and censorship resistance of Bitcoin.
Conclusion
Bitcoin's governance is a carefully balanced process involving developers, miners, node operators, and users. It relies on consensus and transparency to make critical decisions about upgrades and network rules. By allowing open debate and gradual change, the system prioritizes security and decentralization. While the process can be slow and contentious, this is seen as a strength rather than a flaw, as it ensures the network remains secure, resilient, and censorship-resistant.