I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.
Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.
This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation
which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.
I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies
Do you understand open-source software
Apparently you don't.
Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not
Source:
https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25isYes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.
Do you prefer for it to be Mike?
Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from.
The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.
There's no problem with different implementations. The issue with XT is it is run by incompetents who attempt to insert damaging and poorly-reviewed code to a very fragile consensus critical system.
The consensus system is not fragile. I choose to support BIP101, you do not. Agree to disagree but we both do and should have the choice.
If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.
yes you have a choice, now what? i chose to use bitcoin as it is running, you dont want it fine, so consider gtfo already..
i mean, the core devs, the miners and the nodes also are running bitcoin as is, sooo.. well gtfo. again.
even better please be my guest and create that coin of your dream (tho i think you and your alikes do lack the technical competences)..
you might even ipo or premined some them 'retard'coinz
