But the "man" himself said,
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
I believe the essence of "rejecting" other implementations is not political, but more technical, to the convenience of the people who like to spread misinformation.
Franky1, can we have your opinion on Satoshi's thoughts on having another implementation of Bitcoin? I believe he made it very clear that it would be very bad for the network.
Maybe the debate is more technical than political, than what the anti-Core group believes it should be?
but thats the beauty of consensus. to reject rule changes unless majority agree
its the whole point
its why satoshi solved the byzantine generals issue.
by having consensus rules there can be alternative brands on the network. they all follow current rulesets.
. as for upgrades the network has to choose what they (whole community) jointly go for.
but if there is only one general making orders and holding and writing the rulebook(one brand) then there is no choice. its just follow the new rules this single general has written or end up being left out.
also read the entire context. not just someones 'cut' of a quote
read this
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.[/b]
read it. and then without bias. read it as if satoshi was the minority. so you can see both sides of his argument.
HE cant simply upgrade if he is the minority.(EG imagine he wanted to remove code to cause a fee war or promote a non-blockchain network)(EG imagine he became corrupt/malicious)
notice how HE is talking about how its a hassle for HIM (sole controller/general/central point) cant just upgrade if there are alternative versions.
again thats the beauty of consensus. no one should have central control
the november 2016-spring 2017 was a good show of it in action. (65%no : 35%yes to segwit1x)
events in timeline order
late 2015: core proposed segwit1mb. community wanted more than 1mb. some wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb....
a consensus agreement came in a variant of segwit2x. ill call it segwit2mb to seperate the agreement from the later variant called segwit2x
the segwit2mb would have got high majority acceptance. and was the consensus/compromised agreement of late 2015
early 2016: luke JR backed out of segwit2mb by saying his initial agreement of segwit2mb was a empty non contractual agreement and he no longer wants to abide by it because he is not in power enough to code anything to enforce core can put it into code.
(yet a year later lukejr releases mandated code(UASF) as well as other 3 card tricks.. to force in segwit1x(hypocrite))
november 2016: core released a consensus vote of segwit1x with hopes of activation by christmas.....
spring 2017: still no majority. core was sat at 35% and struggling to move
core got a no vote for segwit1mb because core backed out of an early varient of segwit2x which was the communitys agreement of compromise from 65% wanting more baseblock (some originally wanted 16mb, 8mb, then 4) and the 35% wanting a 1mb baseblock and segwit..
if there was 1 brand. core would have got segwit1mb activated in christmas 2016
but would have had 65% unhappy community left stalled out and a "menace to the network".
but instead of core going going back to a segwit2mb agreement. core doubled down on only wanting segwit1mb
(luke and his colleagues released the other kardashian drama of a possibility of segwit2x but only if segwit1mb is activated first(NYA agreement (DCG.CO)).. this is the reference to luke being a hypocrit above where the USAF+NYA MANDATED segwit1mb and threw off the 65% out of the vote because of "backward compatible" nodes dont need to opt-in to segwit1mb.. and any opposers not "compatible" are banned/rejected)
summer 2017: core got what they wanted. yet the community is still divided
bitcoin is not meant to be one general making and updating the rules. its meant to be the army of generals(community) upholding the law and the community to decide on new laws
a reference client should not be a rule MAKER. but a holder of current rules so that people can refer and know the rules
the idea of bitcoin was that everyone was a general. rules stay the same unless the majority agree on a new proposal. yes it makes it harder for one general to change the rules... but thats the point of it. there should not be a single general.
satoshi later realised that he had become the single general and everyone was going to him. which is why he left.
yet 5 years later it went full circle where core is now the single general(central point)
it should never be made EASY for one general to change the rules. mandating changes and splitting the community.
having multiple brands should prevent there being a single general so that the community have power not a single general
if core want to be a reference client then thats being a reference point of only CURRENT RULES
separately if they want to PROPOSE new rules. ok. propose them as a separate version to a REFERENCE CLIENT.. but dont then use mandated stuff to enforce their proposal with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks.
instead of single brand. instead of mandated rule...
let the community consensus around it. and if a majority is not found, compromise..
the 65% against core compromised down to segwit2mb in 2015. yet core have not shown signs of listening to the community to compromise their roadmap. thy instead evicted opposers(usaf) and sheep herded the compromisers(NYA segwit2x).. and once segwit1x got activated. killed of the 2x to just stay with the 1x
