Topic: Bitcoin Development: Lack of Progress? - page 2. (Read 2920 times)

Ripple uses something similar to a block chain with UTXO set attached, called ledger.

The oldest available ledger is #32570 (with about 100 entries) so this is currently the genesis one, the older ones are presumably lost or at least not available until JoelKatz finally publishes the transactions that took place in these first 1 1/2 weeks so these ledgers can be restored back to 0. Since then there is a unbroken hashed chain of headers (also cryptographically linked to the transactions and account state at each point of time). Nodes verify this by getting the most recent finalized ledger and continuing from there. Since transactions in Ripple only operate on account balances, not on inputs like Bitcoin, and you can only branch at the top not "mine" on an earlier "block", there is no explicit need for keeping history, not even headers.

Yes, I've looked over some of Ripple's documentation. How does a node verify the amount of XRP in existence? From what I could see the basis is supposedly a "genesis ledger" as opposed to a genesis block, but there seems to be no way to access the genesis ledger.


That's a numeric statement posted on a website. That doesn't cut it.


That doesn't cut it either. It needs to be mathematically verifiable.

https://ripple.com/wiki/RPC_API#account_info
https://ripple.com/tools/info
You're free to verify this and more also by running your own node.
There is also a bunched together amount released by RippleLabs (https://www.ripplelabs.com/xrp-distribution/) with no further/cryptographically verifiable proof behind that. It looks like about in the right ballpark though, from looking at the distribution of XRP between wallets atm.

Unlike Bitcoin, Ripple does not mainly exist to transact XRP (ripples) though, it mainly exists to facilitade trade. Some people here seem to have a similar vision in mind for BTC (using them as "bridging, globally accepted" currency to make transactions faster by buying them on one end and selling them on the other) so these might feel a bit threatened by XRP than others - if you are interested however in using ONLY bitcoins or holding them for longer periods of time, ignoring XRP and pushing for Ripple is a smart move imho.

I really like the idea of Ripple, but the current problem I have with it is there seems to be no way to verify how many ripples exist. If people complain about Satoshi possibly having 1M or about 5% of all bitcoins, when there is a known amount, what can they say about the creators of Ripple?

Also, keep in mind things change. I believe everyone involved in Bitcoin does better as time goes by, if for no other reason than price appreciation. Another example is that Gavin is formally paid to work on Bitcoin now, via the Bitcoin Foundation, as opposed to early on when it didn't exist.


Yes, I think there is somewhat. That might have been on display with the unintentional version 8 software bug/fork. At the same time I think management of the project is somewhat crowdsourced. For example, I don't contribute core code but I think about the overall system and potential issues with possible solutions all the time. The block size/scalability issue is the biggest example of that. I've weighed in often on the subject and actually have my own ideas for solution which are separate, but complementary to the official answer at the wiki.

Successful open source projects need a Benevolent Dictator for the life of the major code changes, otherwise you have chaos.

When Satoshi left that was the end of major changes, as only he had the authority to push them through.

Project management is a difficult nut to crack. I would appreciate any advice from others on this. I mean the management of the business affairs and marketing. Putting this in the hands of a foundation seems to be corruptible.

Developers such as a myself are loath to deal with lots of extraneous time wasting details that don't pertain to the code.

Thanks guys.

Is there any risk to progress when you have a decentralized development team, and nobody technically managing the project? 
Nobody handling the list of bugs and enhancements, making sure they get done in a timely manner, and nobody to load test or fully QA the system?
PS:  A developer acting as project manager usually isn't the best idea in my experience as a project manager.

This to me is why a semi private development like ripple will be the one to beat presently.  Opensource code with a privately funded development.  Sure decentralization is valuable and should be recognized as the lifeblood of any noncorruptable system of finance.  But the existing financial system we have is and will hopefully remain viable long enough to smoothly, step by step transition into a pure p2p system as bitcoin can be with the p2p exchanges and improvements so needed working on.  This makes ripple a clear contender on a level that is insurmountable to the current state of the bitcoin environment.

You ask a complex question. There are several problems and actually there is more than one answer.

The TL;DR answer IMO is no, there isn't a lack of progress. Bitcoin as it stands today works. It's for the most part secure. It has been attacked in theoretical and real world ways, scrutinized, built on top of, and still it powers ahead. At the end of the day that's all you really care about, that the system works as it should.

Now is it perfect? No, but the same could be said about the Internet and TCP/IP. Yet, how much is done with the Internet and TCP/IP today? A lot.

Another problem with your question is the definition of "progress". Gavin, as the current lead developer, has indicated some of the things he is actively working on, like the payment protocol and floating transaction fees, but that doesn't immediately translate into produced code. Writing good software is more than about actually writing lines of code. It also involves planning, especially for complex applications, and Bitcoin is certainly that.

The next thing to consider is Bitcoin isn't your typical programmed application. Usually, and many people can relate to this, businesses hang out a "down for maintenance" sign whenever they need to do major modifications. That's not an option with Bitcoin. As some aptly describe it it's like working on a 747 going hundreds of miles an hour; if you make too big a mistake the whole thing could crash and burn, or at least scare the hell out of the passengers. Not many people are eager to put themselves in that situation, so major changes are not taken lightly.

Last, there is a very real problem with open source software, which is under funding. There are brilliant developers contributing core code to  Bitcoin, but as of now Gavin is the only one getting paid for it. Just think how great Linux is as an OS, and completely free at that, yet how dominant Windows is in the world. It comes down to funding. Brilliant people working on Linux don't care about average user experience and marketability, as long as things work for them that's good enough. That's not the approach of a profitable software company like Microsoft.

So could Bitcoin core development use a boost? Yes, I agree it could, a financial one. Other than that, it's made up of scrappy coders sacrificing whatever labor they can to make it work well enough.

At the Bitcoin level things need to be simple. I think Einstein said to, “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

If you let something become too complicated then you have something like Mt. Gox that completely collapses.

The most important thing is to create a platform that works. Then let others build things around the platform.  If some feature can be handled outside the Bitcoin level, then leave it out. There is a big community around Bitcoin. Anytime the protocol changes then everything built around it has to take into account potential changes as well.

Just my thoughts.

In my opinion, the development is really, I mean really slow.

This is an issue that has been eating at me for awhile.  

Mostly because I don't know the answer.  And I could be *completely* wrong.  So i am posting this to get some insight from those who know better than me.

It seems to me that there are very few, if any software updates to the Bitcoin protocol.  And a "to do" list that must be growing by the day, with nobody addressing the issues.  

Yes.  I am aware.  They can't move too quickly.  Its an important system.  Must be done right.  Etc.  

Nevertheless, how is the core dev team going to keep up with the expansion / enhancement needs of Bitcoin at this current snails pace?  And when I say snails pace, I mean basically no pace.  The months roll by and I hear nothing about periodic enhancements, upgrades, security issues.  Bitcoin of March 2014 should make Bitcoin of March 2013 look like an ancient relic.  We should be sitting on a powerfully enhanced tool that silences all Bitcoins critics.  We *TELL* everyone that Bitcoin is a flexible, living, growing piece of software, so whatever issue they bring up can be addressed by code modifications.   But nobody is doing code modifications.

Yes there were a couple updates, maybe in the last year I believe, right?   A couple notable things in each one.   Then .... months of silence.  Meanwhile the press, the economists, the naysayers continue to condemn bitcoin for things that we could safely add to the code.   But nobody is doing it.  I saw Gavin mentioning some frustrations with those who demand enhancements but don't provide the resources to actually code them.  I realize there is probably a very good explanation for the utter lack of progress of anything significant.  But the question is:  Is anything being done to address it?  

If Bitcoin is to survive, my understanding is that its claim of being "enhance-able" needs to actually be accurate.  My perception, after daily involvement for the last 11 months, is that little or nothing is getting done.  

Is that a correct perception?  Why, or why not?

Thanks.