From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:37:32 +0200
Message-ID: <1993137.zhoHNu5y1z@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w5uh8y1EMJdJVDhuFs3NG7LeM8T5HzfLHp8kXN15ryrXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgRDVgdMYZo776iLwbm23aGNDWL85YgD=yF=M-0_vqJ5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJw2w5uh8y1EMJdJVDhuFs3NG7LeM8T5HzfLHp8kXN15ryrXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 03:22:59 CEST Karl Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> Bitcoin development differs from Linux kernel development in a number
> of obvious ways, such as the fact Bitcoin is being "patched in
> flight".

I've heard this before and it doesn't make any sense to me. Just like your 
Linux box needs a reboot to get a kernel upgrade, your node needs a restart 
to upgrade. Neither the (entire) internet will go down nor the (entire) 
Bitcoin network will go down as a result.

> Having *something* like a roadmap that gives the average user some
> insights into what exactly is being planned for Bitcoin is very
> desirable, arguably even necessary,

This is fine, and groups that do development should do this more structured 
than something like https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

It just would not make any sense to have a roadmap for the *entire* industry 
as this would require you to decide what technical solution is better than 
another before either of them are fully researched.

Individual groups can have solutions that they believe is the best. And then 
we can let the market decide which one is to be actually activated.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel