Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20890. (Read 26607375 times)

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

YOU BUNCH OF RETARDS THAT JUST CANT STAND MORE THAN 3 MINS WITHOUT MISSING THE LEASH

You're not you when you're hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

with bitfury and f2pool backing bip100, XT is basically dead.

time to move on.

......
You're not you when your hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS KEEN ON FOLLOWING SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations. 

I agree!  It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up.  I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran.  

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations.  When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular.  The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

Your Bitcoin died

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

I agree!  It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up.  I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran.  

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations.  When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular.  The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

That's not a bad idea. I don't like the control the two competing teams of devs are exerting over what path Bitcoin takes. The more choices of implementations there are, the more choice he miners have over the path Bitcoin takes. If the miners chose to go with a new set of devs it could end this mess we are in.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.