It’s fascinating how Bitcoin developers continuously strive to improve its code, aiming to make Bitcoin as robust as possible. They discuss various proposals, and if a consensus is reached among the core contributors, those changes are implemented. However, these decisions are made by individuals deeply immersed in the technical details, while everyday users simply use Bitcoin without delving into its complexities. I believe this is a highly effective model that could serve as an analogy for governing a country.
Currently, governments are chosen through universal voting, where everyone casts a ballot, regardless of their understanding of the issues at hand. But what would happen if everyone in the world voted on how Bitcoin should function, and the majority’s wishes were implemented? It could lead to disaster. Many people would likely prioritize short-term gains, supporting changes that allow them to earn more bitcoins quickly, even if those changes destabilize the network in the long run. Their focus would be on immediate profit, not the system’s sustainability.
Isn’t politics much the same? When people vote, do they think long-term, carefully weighing the pros and cons, or do they simply want a better life now, making them susceptible to empty promises? Should everyone have an equal say in governing a country, or would it be better if governance mirrored Bitcoin’s model—where decisions are made by informed enthusiasts who understand the system’s strengths and weaknesses and are committed to its long-term improvement? Right now, universal voting often leads to governments that are corrupt or prioritize short-term populism over sustainable progress. A system driven by knowledgeable and dedicated individuals might offer a more resilient path forward.
