Well done.<p>You&#x27;ve just demonstrated the breach with reality in Bitcoin-land that is most personally irritating to me--the conflation of democracy with consensus&#x2F;mob rule.<p>Democracy isn&#x27;t (and never was) just &quot;majority preference that is inferred from behavior&quot;.  It&#x27;s the regular, structured process of checking in and putting the rules that affect people up to a group decision, i.e. voting on stuff on a regular basis, and exposing the rules of the system to that process.<p>Having a regular vote on the # of bitcoins?  That&#x27;d give it an element of democracy.  But bring that up, and you get the kind of nonsense you just gave us.<p>And it&#x27;s funny, in bitcoin-land, the very idea of democracy seems really offensive, and I think I know why; I think that the hardcore bitcoin advocates look at bitcoin as a way to get into a system and come out on top.  The actual levers of power in the world are closed off to most of us, and getting <i>into</i> them is a long, hard process that involves skills very few in the computer industry have (or want to develop).  Bitcoin gives its adherents a way to feel like they&#x27;re going to be kings in the new world order, and suggesting the democratizing of this system would of course threaten that.<p>No one in bitcoin-land ever comes back to me and says &quot;Yeah, you&#x27;re right, we <i>should</i> involve more people in the decisions behind how this thing is run.&quot;  That power&#x27;s seductive (well, that fictional, imagined power of being a king in bitcoin-land), I guess.