Bitcoin does not need governance. That's your problem.
It has a better model, which is every user is autonomous and has the volition to choose the software they wish to run to interact with the economy they wish to participate in.
Governance inherently means you want some people to tell other people how to behave.
Then go ahead and fork your block size to 50kB. You're autonomous and you have the volition to choose the software you wish to interact with the economy you wish to participate in, and you just clearly and repeatedly said smaller blocks are better, so hard fork away from the temporarily imposed limit that Satoshi clearly said could be removed at a block height 400k+ blocks ago, because it was never a temporary limit at all, according to you, it's an individual limit that you're free to choose to set to whatever you believe it ought to be.
But of course, that's a lie, such a change would not be liquid with the rest of the economy, and you'd have forked yourself off into irrelevance, just as the fools who tried to set the 1mb temporary limit to permanent have done themselves. That they're too stupid to figure out they're on the wrong side is of zero consequence to the fact that they are.
> Bitcoin does not need governance. That's your problem.
Is that you Theymos?
> ...and has the volition to choose the software they wish to run to interact with the economy they wish to participate in.
How many software choices do BTC users have? I know the answer to this. It's one. You've got one choice to choose from.
> Governance inherently means you want some people to tell other people how to behave.
Governance means if people are willing to talk to each other (and listen), they'll find they have common ground and can make progress and move forward together.
> How many software choices do BTC users have? I know the answer to this. It's one. You've got one choice to choose from
What? There's a bunch of BTC clients. Bitcoin Core is the defacto reference client due to its lineage and presence on bitcoin.org/bitoincore.org, and the fact that the developers work on it in tandem with the BIP process. (There's a process!)
> Governance means if people are willing to talk to each other (and listen), they'll find they have common ground and can make progress and move forward together.
You can't listen to everyone and you ultimately end up having "leaders" to present ideas. Populism does not work. Ideas based on merit will get support by people who put principles above ego.
There were many attempts to get common ground in the block size debate. The ones who attempted to find the middle-ground (ie, Pieter Wuille and Adam Back) had their ideas shot down by big blockers like Mike Hearn, who brought his ego into the equation and tried to make it about "I was here first," and did not want to follow the BIP process. He openly states on the Bitcoin mailing list that he thinks developers should decide the system on behalf of all the users. Other maintainers made it clear that backward incompatible changes don't happen to the rules without broad consensus (of which there was none).
> The ones who attempted to find the middle-ground (ie, Pieter Wuille and Adam Back) had their ideas shot down by big blockers ...
Here's what Adam Back thought about the block size back before Blockstream's agenda took hold of Bitcoin's development. https://i.redd.it/9enseqrfp1v01.png
> Other maintainers made it clear that backward incompatible changes don't happen to the rules without broad consensus (of which there was none).
And this is the fundamental problem. The community had no idea how many people actually wanted blocks bigger than 1mb because everyone who voiced it was kicked out and labeled a scammer. The "bigger block" group was and continues to be massive. The 1mb group continues to be a minority.
It has a better model, which is every user is autonomous and has the volition to choose the software they wish to run to interact with the economy they wish to participate in.
Governance inherently means you want some people to tell other people how to behave.