Topic: Must all nodes run Bitcoin core (Read 324 times)

Why would anyone want to run a node with anything other than core. It seems to be efficient and stable, and it works on most platforms. It is updated and enhanced on a regular basis as well.

Who knows what will be included in other node programs. It doesn't seem wise to me to risk using them.

Yes of course we should be able to run bitcoin with the best possible, so that result in get also appropriate and maximal.

It frankly doesn't matter what you think is or isn't a "good idea" or "responsible".  None of it changes the fact that my statement was factually correct.  It's not "carefully crafted language", it's merely how the damn thing works by design.  Users choose the code, devs simply produce it.  No amount of you trying to twist the narrative to imply otherwise is going to change that.  You can name any number of examples of forks you perceive to be malignant, but it still doesn't change the part where everyone's free to run what they want and you have no business telling them they shouldn't just because you don't personally approve.  It's not your decision.  I have no intention of undermining development, but I do take great pleasure in undermining you at every available opportunity you hand me on a platter.  Now stop being such a delicate and paranoid little snowflake, we've been over this enough times already.  I honestly thought it would have sunk in by now.  However the free-for-all reality is used, it's still the reality, so deal with it already.

That's true.


Regardless of that, it's not a good idea to have competing consensus rules on the same network. Consensus on the rules, and consequently on the validity of blocks, is what makes the Bitcoin network stable, and hence provides a fundamental part of it's market value (i.e. the Bitcoin price).

Promoting forking of the network in anything but the most dire circumstances is very reckless, and very anti-social. Why would you want to threaten the value of everyone's BTC over non-issues?

---

The way to handle technical proposals in a way that is responsible is to discuss it with the rest of the developers. If that can't be achieved, trying to disenfranchise a minority of Bitcoin users by promoting a contentious hard fork is morally highly questionable: it's far more respectful to everyone simply to release a new coin using the consensus rules rejected by the other Bitcoin developers. I think anyone that's been following the various external fork battles can reasonably conclude that, every unrealised fork and every fork that did happen has been woefully ineffective in it's stated purpose and achieved questionable market share. And some Bitcoin forks were clearly entirely cynical in their genuine motives.

This is not to say that the Core team could not become corrupted or make poor choices of direction in future, nobody's perfect. But this issue should be highlighted in the fullest way possible, and if that's to be so, it should be made clear that in Bitcoin's history up to now, the free-for-all reality of the consensus rules in Bitcoin has only ever been used in a malign way.

Regardless of the examples that anyone comes up with, the fact is that Bitcoin Core does not define consensus.  The choices of the users (merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, mining pools, etc) define the consensus.  At the moment the users are choosing to use the rules of Bitcoin Core as the current set of consensus rules.  At any time in the future, the users could change their minds and choose some other source of consensus rules (such as some other software).

BIP 91 wasn't actually enforced by the Bitcoin network, only among the miners that adopted it. There was no consensus adoption of BIP 91.

It was a proxy to get Segwit activation signalling above a level that made BIP 141 (i.e. Segwit) a certainty. BIP 141 was enforced on the Bitcoin network, not BIP 91.

BIP 91 Reduced threshold for enforcing Segwit activation. It happened but code enforcing BIP 91 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. The author of the BIP is also not someone that many would consider to be a Bitcoin Core developer.

Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.


Note to Bitcointalk.org: DooMAD consistently uses carefully crafted statements like these to undermine the working and proven model of bitcoin development, and has consistently used carefully crafted language to support other (bad) actors in the bitcoin space to undermine the working & proven model of bitcoin development.

Or to be absolutely precise, as long as they satisfy the rules which consensus currently enforces.  It just happens to be the case that most people use what tends to be referred to as the "reference implementation".  It doesn't mean that one implementation sets the rules that all other nodes are forced to abide by. 

Thanks.

Yes it's possible.

There are several implementations of the bitcoin protocol which can act as a full node.

You can see a list of available implementations here https://coin.dance/nodes.

You need to scroll down to "Bitcoin Node Implementations" section.

Yes, there are other full node implementations to run. bcoin is one written in JavaScript, and btcd is another written in Go.

i have a simple question.

Bitcoin core is a reference implementation of bitcoin. Can we run other implementation of bitcoin , such as in Python, Java, or Ruby , as bitcoin node on mainnet ?

I suppose we can.