And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.
"Conflict of interest" anyone?
If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.
lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.
I'm aware, and the redlisting "idea". His ideas often go in these directions, including his node prioritization schemes used in XT.
But if he seems he's hit a wall in his undermining of Bitcoin's decentralisation and censorship-resistance from within development, then he will try from the outside. I think it's a matter of time. Gavin already joined the "alliance" and is actively working in the policing of Bitcoin. Talk about conflict of interest.
More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.
Sorry, it is important because if XT would succeed Gavin and Hearn would be the most powerful people in Bitcoin. Xt 101 is not just about code its also about change of leadership. We have to analyse the leaders.
Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.
It will always have various leaders of some sort, with more or less power.
Because instead of having centralized top down control by Core we can have several implementations of the Bitcoin protocol instead which people would then be free to choose from. We would not be moving from one dictatorship to another, since we would be in effect distributing this power, it would more closely resemble a congress at such a point.
Here is an example of what decentralization of development could look like:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12959461Centralised top down control by Hearn or Gavin is better? This is the only choice presented. Core needs to die, thats what Mike Hearn says. He is correct, Gavin-Hearn need a majority of network. They need to replace core, for 101/Xt to come into effect.
If we have split divided implementations then 101 does not come into effect.
In terms of pure development, other implementations and developers are always welcomed and aided by the core team.
What counts tho is whose code people run. They need to completely stop running core and run XT. At that point we have even more centralised development.
The same identical situation except core team is replaced by Hearn/Gavin. How else can fork come about? Coinbase said this is what they want.
Please specify what you envision and how it will come about through everybody using XT Not just slogan 'decentralise development'.
P.S. Re the graphic. That is a joke, the other implementations are not real implementations just copies of the same implementation who almost nobody runs or will run. They have no developer capable of writing core code. And
will need to run the same protocol code as XT even if they do have backing, for fork to come into effect, its a consensus network lol.
What Peter R says, is more theory that has no connection to reality. That will not happen. The only possible thing is enough exchanges run Xt/101 and Gavin is placed as head developer replacing core. I.e. we are left with even more centralised development. Unlikely (hopefully) but realistic.
. 
