This concept is similar to Proof of Stake which was pioneered by Peercoin. [1]
It's been around a long time and bitcoin hasn't been changed to take advantage of it.
Ultimately, the community seems to have a big say in bitcoin and it's not limited to a proportional share. The community includes at least {holders, merchants, miners}. It's in their mutual interest to preserve stability but if one group acts in their exclusive interest to the detriment of the others, it makes sense for the others to consider a fork.
> I was wondering, why the bitcoin owners themself cant't decide. ... should have more to say about it.
Ultimately that sounds a little aristocratic and bitcoin itself seems more egalitarian. Regardless of philosophy, the blockchain is defined to be a consensus of a set of computers running software. Anyone of us could write new software to take the bitcoin blockchain into a new direction with new features. If we could convince some folks to run our new software, we would have our own fork. If the features are compelling enough, we could take the majority of nodes with us. Decentralized and fairly democratic -- you can have your blockchain and we can have ours.
> It's been around a long time and bitcoin hasn't been changed to take advantage of it.
Of course it hasn't, Bitcoin is decentralized and Peercoin requires the developer of the system to continually sign the chain.
Proof of stake sounds lovely, but it doesn't work and attempts to rescue it have at best resulted in things with very different security assumptions and properties from Bitcoin. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
It's been around a long time and bitcoin hasn't been changed to take advantage of it.
Ultimately, the community seems to have a big say in bitcoin and it's not limited to a proportional share. The community includes at least {holders, merchants, miners}. It's in their mutual interest to preserve stability but if one group acts in their exclusive interest to the detriment of the others, it makes sense for the others to consider a fork.
> I was wondering, why the bitcoin owners themself cant't decide. ... should have more to say about it.
Ultimately that sounds a little aristocratic and bitcoin itself seems more egalitarian. Regardless of philosophy, the blockchain is defined to be a consensus of a set of computers running software. Anyone of us could write new software to take the bitcoin blockchain into a new direction with new features. If we could convince some folks to run our new software, we would have our own fork. If the features are compelling enough, we could take the majority of nodes with us. Decentralized and fairly democratic -- you can have your blockchain and we can have ours.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake