what you do not realise is that in the era of 2018 when gmax cried on the trust rating.
is that you were part of the cries of one topic and the cries of your girlfriend were part of another topic. yet you do not want to explain why you were crying and wanting gmax to kiss you better and make you happy, by wanting gmax to argue with me and assert his authority
the two topics where gmax first got emotionally triggered... the first topic concerned core centralising the network
the other trigger(involving you) was about segwit utility being low where the supposed 100% activation in 2017, yet under 11% adoption a year later
ill start with the debate your girlfriend was in. as that was first trigger in late september 2018
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46029392windfurys girlfriend(Doomad(windfurys favoured source of mindset)) was open to thinking outside the core box. asking about decentralising the code base.
Just responding to this particular fork of discussion now,
I know this is probably the last argument most people want to hear, but is this not a case where more independent implementations would result in less risk?
They would create more risk. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that this is an objective fact which has been borne out by the history.
within days. he got recruited into the mindset that centralisation of code is good
I know this is probably the last argument most people want to hear, but is this not a case where more independent implementations would result in less risk?
No. This is nonsense that has been pushed by those actively trying to co-opt the network
Back to the main purpose of the thread, though. Yes, there are definitely some issues with multiple implementations if it's done in the wrong way. It seems there's no simple answer to this one. Aside from the things gmaxwell and achow101 mentioned, I suspect one of the primary flaws with multiple implementations is that much of the code would simply be copied from other implementations anyway. It wouldn't necessarily ensure catching any present faults, even if people were taking the effort to run two different clients to compare results. If they've inadvertently duplicated the bug, it won't make any difference. Much like how any of the altcoins that may have been affected didn't spot duplicate inputs either.
heck. even gmax was having a tearful session arguing with cobra about the centralisation
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46080594. then you see even cobra starts toeing the line of less implementations and sites hosting release are better
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46211591so while windfurys girlfriend now says "its franky and only franky thinking this way"
she forgets her own mindset before she and others leaped into the centralised core fanclub of single implementation rules all
and then when i explain in a different topic that segwit was not being used as much as promoted. he got super upset
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.47306700fact was segwit was not being used much in 2018,
i was highlighting that instead of using stats of P2WPKH
they falsely included P2SH as a "segwit count" even though p2SH was a count of legacy based multisig too.
and not all inputs or outputs of P2WPKH or P2SH or psWsh were segwit inputs or outputs
EG
1legacy -> 3legacymultisig
3segwitSH
1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 33% segwit
EG
3legacymultisig -> 3legacymultisig
1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 0% segwit
i even highlighed how there were over all utxo, a low count of segwit
i even narrowed it down to a conservative window of april 2016-october 2018 and showed the low segwit use count (p2Wsh and p2Wpkh)
but gmax wanted the p2sh included to muffle the results and he called me the mis-informer
pfft
gmax got all riled up and felt like his efforts were being attacked by anyone suggesting to decentralise core and have other implementations aswell as having the efforts that segwit was not being used questioned too. totally made his head blow
he didnt like it because he was co-founder of a company thats main income was an investment to get segwit activated and used by majority
and it done so by having core as the defacto repo everyone should use.
..
in recent years he has settled down a bit and realised that his opposition to me was less about what i was saying. but more about how i was saying it.. my thing is how i inform people where im just frank and to the point without ass-kissery..
even things like debates as far back as 2016 about anyone-can spend he backed down on .. after all the segwit wallet allowing p2wsh and p2wpkh was not released until months after segwit activation because yep i was right there was a flaw if they released the wallet signing feature too early..(before majority nodes upgraded to not treat them as anyone-can-spend) as i warned
but hey.. windfury will just reply without explanation or reference. and just insult and play victim that he is going insane due to me,
many devs now see and admit to the centralisation of core and the bad utility of the mandatory activation policy that was used...
.. so 4-5 years after all the crying. they seemed to have realised things . unlike the fangirls(winfury and clan) who are stuck in outdated scripts from many years ago now being debunked even by their dev idols
