One thing most will assume that is constant is the infrastructure of a git
repo + SSH. I think there could be different models. As soon as one sees
that the question is how one could define properties of the software and
have different change models. SSH means somebody (or a group) has a key,
where the first creator of the repo has ultimate authority in that he
defines he will get the key. The authority to change code is all inclusive.
However, instead one could have a kind of genesis block type model, where
the initial code in the repo is preserved for all changes thereafter. This
would mean that some changes would be impossible, or would be impossible
without "consent". This kind of model would make sense for any future
crypto currency which learns from bitcoin. By this mechanism the useres of
the network will know that some changes will be impossible (or would
require a kind of hack).


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@???> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:10:29 PM Benjamin Cordes wrote:
> > In a sense, general public == troll. Which is one problem with democracy.
> > The eternal Plato suggested a regime of smart people, called the lovers
> of
> > wisdom, the philosophers, to rule the world in a selfless and good way.
> > Karl Popper pointed out, this is the path to dictatorship,
>
> Democracy leads to dictatorship much faster than monarchy or other forms of
> government.
>
> > and instead said we should have a open society, where the rulers can
> always
> > be removed without a war.
>
> You "remove" rulers by moving to another State. The problem comes when they
> get too big and there are no more options (like now)... The USA sucks, and
> I'd
> like to move away, but there's nowhere better to go :(
>
> > Can users of bitcoin replace bitcoin devs with new devs?
>
> Yes, they switch to software maintained by the new devs.
>
> Luke
>