Here we are again, already, at another contentious proposal. Many chains have tried various ways to solve the governance issue.
Bitcoin is a system of economic incentives. Miners make the decision on which software to run. They have large investments in coins and hardware. But they rely on the community at large to buy these coins.
How can miners gauge the market sentiment for various choices?
How can "the community" express their preference to the miners?
Right now, it is via twitter, reddit, telegram and articles like this. Do we think this is a reliable method? I'm well aware there are gleefull trolls who delight in the drama BCH is currently experiencing. Personally I find it exhausting and it the uncertainty has prevented me from committing my time to the project.
I believe we should institute onchain voting, on proposals presented by the Dev Teams. This would be weighted via wallet, and ideally, using a form of liquid democracy, where you could delegate your votes to someone more educated on the topic than yourself if you wished.
one possible example:
Votes would be weighted via wallet size. Yes this is a plutocracy not democracy, but it shows ones money is where ones mouth is. Votes are not in anyway binding. Ultimately the miners will decide which software to run. But this would provide a crucial metric. Rather than "Going against the community". "70% of the value of the chain is against this". Or at least "70% of those who could be bothered to vote".
It is not a perfect system. But it would be better than "this".
We lost the scaling debate because our voices were silenced. And miners did the "conservative thing". Give the miners a clear message about chain development, signed by your wallet. And the sockpuppets, trolls, and drama will cease to matter.
Good information