The law of triviality is an argument that people within an organization commonly give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Say for example, a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bicycle shed, while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult and complex task.
I came across an interesting, mostly harmless, conspiracy for a possible attack on Bitcoin.
What if a VC firm or resourceful organization were to pay Bitcoin developers to basically code nothing - they would gain a platform, maybe go on the conference circuit/podcasts and talk about their projects and ideas, but it's just an endless cycle of discourse.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Bitcoin remains simple and doesn't change all that often, but there is the potential that this characteristic could be used against Bitcoin and could be a form of attack.
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Robust development in Bitcoin
We should get back to The Bike Shed and solve the soft fork activation problem - permanently. I would like to see more of Bitcoin's ~antifragile qualities and it thriving in decentralized chaos.
Now I may be naive but with something like the 95% consensus signal, how many proposals would actually be activated except for those proposals that have real worth?
The cream will always rise to the top. Or would it just result in a mexican stand off, as no one wants to make a mistake?