Bitcoin's implementations - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

lachesis

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 105

I think you mean fragment, not defragment. Cheesy

Satoshi is strongly against other clients because if two clients on the network don't agree on something, there's no central judge to sort it out. It could create problems for both groups of users.

Also, Bitcoin is OSS. Why would we need another implementation?

I agree with dwdollar.

dkaparis

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

Quote from: dwdollar on June 28, 2010, 06:07:22 PM

I believe the best approach is to have completely independent currencies with completely independent chains.

Here are a few reasons...

1) It's easier for developers concerning compatibility issues.
2) It addresses deflationary concerns, by allowing more currencies to come online as demand increases and currency is lost.
3) It compartmentalizes. A weakness or exploit in one currency doesn't necessarily affect other currencies.
4) It allows people to pick between competing currencies and choose the winners.

Once the concept of P2P digital crypto currencies becomes mainstream, then yes, development of alternative currencies is desirable and inevitable, for the reasons you have pointed. But at this early stage I'd rather have people help the establishment of Bitcoin. The P2P currency economy is still very tiny as it is, it would do no good to fragment the minuscule market we have now.

dwdollar

full member

Activity: 202

Merit: 109

GCC - Global cryptocurrency

I believe the best approach is to have completely independent currencies with completely independent chains.

Here are a few reasons...

1) It's easier for developers concerning compatibility issues.
2) It addresses deflationary concerns, by allowing more currencies to come online as demand increases and currency is lost.
3) It compartmentalizes. A weakness or exploit in one currency doesn't necessarily affect other currencies.
4) It allows people to pick between competing currencies and choose the winners.

ruano

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

This is my first post, my first impression on Bitcoin after prowling around during days.

I am impressed with the mathematical machinery, hardly impressed.

On the other hand, a recurring question strikes me.

Seemingly the Bitcoin's implementation was born as a stand-alone executable, a main loop driven GUI. Additionally, from 0.2.6 version, JSON-RPC events can be fed into the main loop allowing integration with a variety of environments; however the stand-alone nature remains.

I have seen some topics proposing Firefox plugins or a standardized API (likely as a C++ library). But, ... there could be one question beyond.

What about another Bitcoin's implementations? Of course, I am talking about conformant ones.

Particularly, interesting implementations could address disadvantages of the monolithic, stand-alone solution. Examples of such advantages could be distribution of the heavy computational effort, additional concurrent networks to boost broadcasting of Bitcoin's blocks, and so on.

I would like to know the position of Bitcoin's community regarding of several Bitcoin implementations working all together.

Make sense? Is it acceptable? Are any such initiatives out there?

Topic: Bitcoin's implementations - page 2. (Read 13670 times)