Whitepaper idea feedback

[Dexaran]

4. Bitnet
   ...
   To achieve that, such protocol needs to be conceived on the following core principles:
   • To have no pre-mined supply or private allocations, including those to the development team,
   • To be free for everyone to participate, have no CEO, and able to foster a core community that appreciates the values of decentralisation and fairness for the new global financial system,
   • To be programmable so it can scale and attend different niches of society with different flavours of money, including private money,
   • To have a predictable inflationary supply to avoid long-term takeovers and allow for economic expansion,
   • To use a Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism that will imply on the tang

Leaving alone consensus discussions and whether POS is better than POW - you are missing one critical point.

The main problem that you need to solve is the problem of governance. The necessity of achieving consensus on how to modify the rules of the existing consensus.

It is obvious that changes need to be applied to projects periodically. And the main problem in every blockchain projects is how this changes are applied.

It is the main problem with Ethereum CLassic for example. It does exactly everything that you describe in your whitepaper - it is a POW chain, it doesnt have development funding etc. but it does not solve the problem of governance. Thats why ETC is not going anywhere.

[masayoshikob]

I do not believe Ethereum Classic does that, exactly because of its shared history with Ethereum up to the DAO hack incident - in principle, it has the same foundational issues than the latter. But I do agree that governance is key, and I also do understand that it is one of the main reasons why ETC hasn't gone anywhere. The idea for Bitnet is such that I want it to have a core development team, and community initiatives that will do deal with organisational issues, incentivisation of development and the ecosystem, and ultimately, protocol changes; all of which ETC lacks. I had dealings with ETC for some time, so I am well aware of their issues, and believe Bitnet can overcome those.

As a fully decentralised and open source project, suggestions and participation are well welcome. Do you have anything in mind that you believe would benefit the project and its users when it comes to governance structure?

[Dexaran]

The idea for Bitnet is such that I want it to have a core development team

ETC also had this.

Do you have anything in mind that you believe would benefit the project and its users when it comes to governance structure?

Probably a kind of DAO. Unfortunately there is no successful implementation that could be pointed at.
I am working on a DAO right now https://github.com/Dexaran/CallistoDAO but it's more about financial DAO that governs "how the funds are distributed and who has the rights to vote and propose".

You need to answer a different question "who has the rights to propose and implement changes to the protocol / who has the rights to vote on changes to the protocol". (I guess who has the rights to propose is irrelevant if the platform is open for anyone and any community member can propose a new idea like in Ethereums EIPs)

There is a good book to read about designing governance systems in general and the corresponding problems and I do recommend to read it: https://moreequalanimals.com/assets/MoreEqualAnimals-1.15.2021.pdf

[masayoshikob]

I'm sure to have a look and have a read. Fundamentally though, I do not disagree with ETC's policy when it comes to the implementation of changes, and I do not see it as being the main issue there, nor the reason why it hasn't achieved a broader userbase and usage. Anyone should be able to propose changes to the protocol, as well as to implement them, and if the majority of miners and community agree with the proposed changes, they will just update their software and follow them along, whereas the opposite is true too. A great constructive example of this was the formation of Bitcoin Cash, and I truly believe that it is a fair way to solve potential disputes within the protocol. It has its drawbacks, but ensures the ethos of decentralisation isn't harmed by internal disputes.

I do believe that it is also important to have some sort or body that can assist users and developers onboarding the network, as well as helping drive awareness and education to the general public. Somewhere for users to "land on" and get directions on where to go. Hopefully this will come in due course, but this doesn't necessarily need to interfere on how general protocol governance is conducted.

I have checked your profile, and realised I've seen you around before. You're welcome to join the cause and help build the vision. I believe you and I share some ideological common ground.