MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:11:12 +0000
From: Monarch <monarch@cock.li>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com>
References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li>
	<55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
	<e786da226b8e9cfaad335454b299ffd5@cock.li>
	<CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com>
Message-ID: <5b7c2ba6e785e59595c2ee9a4596f097@cock.li>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Precedence: list

On 2015-08-31 23:32, Peter R wrote:
> On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 

> It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple
> implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the
> network's dependency on Core.
> 

That would be incredibly foolish given the history, where even heroic
attempts at making consensus compatible re-implementations have ended
rather poorly.  bitcoin-ruby and btcd have collectively had numerous
consensus failures, some only recently found by fuzzing the scripting
environment.  There are more failures than publicly disclosed, and
almost any failure can be leveraged to split the network and steal
money.   Ethereum attempted to create four clients, written to a
defined specification, and even with all the money in the world has
managed to have numerous consensus failures due to misunderstanding or
implementation.


> I agree. What about decentralization in development? Gavin recently
> said that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple
> robust implementations of the core protocol."
> 

Gavin clearly hasn't kept up with the ridiculousness of that task.