I left mumble after posting a chat msg b/c the discussion at that time wasn't about review bd but rather about various features and how to choose them. That's an important discussion to be sure, but IMO BitShares is still too young to pull leadership decisions out of Dan / Stan's hands and into those of shareholders for development direction issues.
This was what CryptoPrometheus raised ann BM addressed near the end of the early mumble. BM did a good job IMO of explaining the role of the review board vs. how operational issues are raised, discussed and decided.
We still need some centralized leadership (with shareholder oversight) until our ecosystem is mature enough to bring issues that change the course of development in fundamental ways to the broad spectrum of shareholders.
Also, for some reason I was unable to speak, even after exiting and coming back in twice. It was like my mic was muted.
Okay good. I had your back in this Thom. Don't know if I did too great of an explanation but I tried to use the analogy of Recursion and having a solid base case/definition which I believe Dan and Stan (the Mans) are in our plan to get Bitshares out of a Jam and making it rain on all of us like a Dam
Yes that all rhymes. Anyways you are correct. They are needed at the foundation. We need their leadership. Period. We don't even need to use the word centralized. Its counter productive and suggests their leadership is a bug rather than a feature.
There is no decentralized algorithm that can currently replace the unique human mind of our Founders. And there will not be for a very VERY long time. That's a mode of artificial intelligence that just cannot be done. "Decentralization" is like the wizard of Oz now to me. Look behind the curtain. Its only working very well for somethings but it is very counterproductive in a lot of important things especially in the life of a project so young.
Its like asking everyone in the world to be a baby's parent went it is born. What type of non$ense is that? Look at its actual parents and start there.
As long as the founders of Bitshares can keep to their word in building out Bitshares as a function that necessarily computes their philosophy as defined then there is no way that we can have any other type of system other than one in which Bitshares is decentralized. For even they have to follow the rule of law (or its automated computing function). As they are the ones providing the definitions of its system with upgrades.
If Satoshi had stuck with his project and lead it to a point where it could really walk on its own in its original vision it wouldn't have grown up to be such a bad teen with no Father and increasingly bad influences around it which now unfortunately determine its future. Reminds me of a lot of these Chicago kids...
Anyways we need to not fall into that same trap with all this decentralized decentralized decentralized mantras. Everything in moderation and in due time. If WE coded it correctly "decentralization" will naturally happen AT THE RIGHT TIME and in the right way with Bitshares.
In the short term the technology doesn't work without the Human element. Period. And there are no other humans that are better for it than Dan and Stan. People need to come to grips with that and lets move forward. Right now as with any baby Bitshares naturally needs its natural parents. It needs this technology to be nurtured and developed in the right direction. America became what it was because it had the right direction and the right parents. Not the perfect direction or the perfect parents but the right ones. It had the right parents to write its base function. We shouldn't take the parents away from the child. End of story.