Return-Path: <peter_r@gmx.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA9E1512
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  1 Sep 2015 02:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3012314B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  1 Sep 2015 02:16:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.50.29] ([69.50.179.106]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVayZ-1ZC5YA2ZGZ-00YyTx;
	Tue, 01 Sep 2015 04:16:22 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_3249B38A-6A43-4129-B023-2426BB90E755";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:16:22 -0700
Message-Id: <CC252814-9AF6-4A28-926E-EE83C517E440@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>
	<55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org>
To: s7r@sky-ip.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:bIunYGW6RTxYEBMzivAksIjkI3drSK6k6g84BaqFHY35gafnMVs
	3JJkksKzFu+AozNNAFvPp99CJZy1dzMg/jR++meR2uBWDht0KCzfH1C8Jhpfi8F8XpLGZ+7
	YJq8j5Afy8ACcAEeHHPjDzmtXyQN6W+ttO8WC/Rb0T3cynFR1depzePUjnOMDEgKRviA1uR
	/6uHfhftx87RZFs6SoXwQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:JdIi/qefaHo=:RTbIMyeE3PBK1IMHqUaS34
	y9vyMbWyX4aAvrD28vMtVDvU6cESKwZPBub7ag6o1QrzBockqCCPrxx5S2fwq0Kiv9NrDH8yA
	0S2UaFupMUNEIxP4IVHDHSlZsJPldzMJEBOdfEpvuX9eD+WB328f8JrbGxz6363Td3FDkKA1x
	sjO6WliV62Y9KuUR3Cwah52IiDm8IkY8GcOWl9DKGWhqeTHMi+xO3FTJGx6u10zYI3a5WpNNy
	oyFukrQFIsg70nuGsR9m86+Ic/9B2FL2QtT9BqHsMR5ENePjRgwZfLUkU7yXbrjtKpJzvFg13
	ls5dfqhU47XawSMirSLcz+C3lLTgqAvasIX3HzwZI4/FIab0IqZx8G0AcZbajvdQhXjSnK5cl
	ZL7G+an1Uu1lwnStLjVLhhGJ/OyVhdK81hH9DP1rNxgPVx3P8VQG9UKcpMufsS+8RBCdYIvTi
	YehIY/5XT9d4h6iljf75iumc8k5LEc0OyuomzfmbMZRMHHVnsD+AkFhPaVgzXhVRAH7alOBEJ
	bGvJ2MEgQJX/y4z8flQ12x9sIKmT55RfEndi315XA5J+1vXvlZ3+gtkDk7m5O6ksF9FreMMJ7
	4K5jc/olLuX1yAf8ZbBfVb9qxctM6641gzYWxtzQcBLGqYUUCI6WYl85bCIiDSnnuK+M72dN1
	cvh2x1uoIAJcwmL9QLhaMsKkdWo28/G6Q/zg1lIAxFUpNyZ7k2/xjQHAgOXbKpXt/ebCINjKl
	yKqyBXQCePF5VPZ+z7xMrwv8pwAUrHwtPX22KXrGkwrjvy64gE8kJF1KCwq087VXVZuPriGEj
	Uc5OwVd6SVLGFlgI3W2U3LfWSpU0w==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of
	a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 02:16:32 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_3249B38A-6A43-4129-B023-2426BB90E755
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DEB796C-DFFA-40A7-A5C6-7C23E13B2E26"


--Apple-Mail=_1DEB796C-DFFA-40A7-A5C6-7C23E13B2E26
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

I agree, s7r, that Bitcoin Core represents the most stable code base.  =
To create multiple implementations, other groups would fork Bitcoin Core =
similar to what Bitcoin XT did.  We could have:

- Bitcoin-A (XT)
- Bitcoin-B (Blockstream)
- Bitcoin-C (promoting BIP100)
- Bitcoin-D
- etc.

Innovation from any development group would be freely integrated by any =
other development group, if desired.  Of course, each group would have a =
very strong incentive to remain fork-wise compatible with the other =
implementations. =20

In fact, this just gave me a great idea!  Since Wladimir has stated that =
he will not integrate a forking change into Core without Core Dev =
consensus, I suggest we work together to never reach consensus with =
Bitcoin Core.  This will provide impetus for new implementations to fork =
from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they =
deem best.  The users will then select the winning solution simply based =
on the code they choose to run.  The other implementations will then =
rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user =
bases. =20

This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action.  Creative =
destruction.  Consensus formed simply by the code that gets run. =20

Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new =
implementations to grow from its fertile ashes. =20

Sincerely,
Peter R


On 2015-08-31, at 4:47 PM, s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> wrote:

> Signed PGP part
> Decentralization depends on the context and does not have a definition
> in a form that it was demanded... I can confirm we have people in our
> community which do understand decentralization, and quite good
> actually, just there is no definition if the form demanded.
>=20
> It is known that ~90% (at least of the nodes accepting incoming
> connections) are running Bitcoin Core software. This does not mean
> that Bitcoin is somehow less decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open
> source, it has many contributors from all over the world and there are
> many pull requests - most of them do get merged if you check the
> commit history. It is widely used because the quality of the code is 5
> stars. There are other implementations as well, they are just not
> widely used. This does not mean one is not free to write his own
> implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (assuming he follows the
> consensus rules of the network). The biggest problem is convincing
> users to adopt that implementation, which is a normal thing which
> happens in general, not only related to software implementations.
>=20
> The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes
> near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to
> try other implementations as well, but something serious, because
> Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with.
>=20
> This is the reason why a lot of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core
> rather than writing their own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin
> Core stronger, better, and obviously the result is that it has
> majority in the ecosystem for good reasons. If I'm experienced in a
> certain segment related to software developing, I am better of in
> contributing to Bitcoin Core just with the part I know instead of
> writing from scratch my own implementation.
>=20
> On 9/1/2015 2:32 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> Even so, *decentralization is a means to an end* - not an
> >> end-goal. It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative,
> >> of course.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > When I look at this image (https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif)
> > illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and development, the
> > biggest source of concern for me is the 85% node share around
> > Bitcoin Core.  With this level of centralization, it may be
> > possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important
> > changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their
> > interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin
> > community).
> >
> > It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple
> > implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the
> > network's dependency on Core.
> >
> > Best regards, Peter R
> >
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_1DEB796C-DFFA-40A7-A5C6-7C23E13B2E26
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" =
content=3D"text/html charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>I agree, s7r, that Bitcoin =
Core represents the most stable code base. &nbsp;To create multiple =
implementations, other groups would fork Bitcoin Core similar to what =
Bitcoin XT did. &nbsp;We could have:</div><div><br></div><div>- =
Bitcoin-A (XT)</div><div>- Bitcoin-B (Blockstream)</div><div>- Bitcoin-C =
(promoting BIP100)</div><div>- Bitcoin-D</div><div>- =
etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Innovation from any development group =
would be freely integrated by any other development group, if desired. =
&nbsp;Of course, each group would have a very strong incentive to remain =
fork-wise compatible with the other implementations. =
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, this just gave me a great idea! =
&nbsp;Since Wladimir has stated that he will not integrate a forking =
change into Core without Core Dev consensus, <b>I suggest we work =
together to never reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. &nbsp;</b>This will =
provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) =
and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. &nbsp;The users =
will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they =
choose to run. &nbsp;The other implementations will then rush to make =
compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases. =
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>This is the decentralized spirit of =
Bitcoin in action. &nbsp;Creative destruction. &nbsp;Consensus formed =
simply by the code that gets run. =
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div><b>Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the =
green shoots of a garden of new&nbsp;implementations&nbsp;to grow from =
its fertile =
ashes.&nbsp;&nbsp;</b></div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div>Peter=
 R</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 2015-08-31, at 4:47 PM, s7r =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:s7r@sky-ip.org">s7r@sky-ip.org</a>&gt; =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><fieldset style=3D"padding-top:10px; border:0px; border: =
3px solid #CCC; padding-left: 20px;"><legend =
style=3D"font-weight:bold">Signed PGP part</legend><div =
style=3D"padding-left:3px;">Decentralization depends on the context and =
does not have a definition<br>in a form that it was demanded... I can =
confirm we have people in our<br>community which do understand =
decentralization, and quite good<br>actually, just there is no =
definition if the form demanded.<br><br>It is known that ~90% (at least =
of the nodes accepting incoming<br>connections) are running Bitcoin Core =
software. This does not mean<br>that Bitcoin is somehow less =
decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open<br>source, it has many contributors =
from all over the world and there are<br>many pull requests - most of =
them do get merged if you check the<br>commit history. It is widely used =
because the quality of the code is 5<br>stars. There are other =
implementations as well, they are just not<br>widely used. This does not =
mean one is not free to write his own<br>implementation of the Bitcoin =
protocol (assuming he follows the<br>consensus rules of the network). =
The biggest problem is convincing<br>users to adopt that implementation, =
which is a normal thing which<br>happens in general, not only related to =
software implementations.<br><br>The problem is there is no other =
implementation out there which comes<br>near the quality of the code in =
Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to<br>try other implementations as =
well, but something serious, because<br>Bitcoin itself is a payment =
protocol not something to play with.<br><br>This is the reason why a lot =
of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core<br>rather than writing their =
own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin<br>Core stronger, better, =
and obviously the result is that it has<br>majority in the ecosystem for =
good reasons. If I'm experienced in a<br>certain segment related to =
software developing, I am better of in<br>contributing to Bitcoin Core =
just with the part I know instead of<br>writing from scratch my own =
implementation.<br><br>On 9/1/2015 2:32 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:<br>&gt; On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via =
bitcoin-dev<br>&gt; &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a><br>&gt; &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">mailto:bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Even so, =
*decentralization is a means to an end* - not an<br>&gt;&gt; end-goal. =
It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative,<br>&gt;&gt; of =
course.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I agree.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span> What about =
decentralization in development?<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span> Gavin<br>&gt; recently =
said that he wants to "get to the point where there will<br>&gt; be =
multiple robust implementations of the core protocol."<br>&gt;<br>&gt; =
When I look at this image (<a =
href=3D"https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif">https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif</=
a>)<br>&gt; illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and =
development, the<br>&gt; biggest source of concern for me is the 85% =
node share around<br>&gt; Bitcoin Core.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span> With this level of =
centralization, it may be<br>&gt; possible in the future for a group of =
coders to prevent important<br>&gt; changes from being made in a timely =
fashion (e.g., should their<br>&gt; interests no longer align with those =
of the larger Bitcoin<br>&gt; community).<br>&gt;<br>&gt; It is my =
opinion, then, that we should support multiple<br>&gt; implementations =
of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the<br>&gt; network's =
dependency on Core.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Best regards, Peter =
R<br>&gt;</div></fieldset><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_1DEB796C-DFFA-40A7-A5C6-7C23E13B2E26--

--Apple-Mail=_3249B38A-6A43-4129-B023-2426BB90E755
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV5Qp2AAoJEORK3dmodztxcjYH/jQbSxSOv/jVRUfGrYtQkpDx
meiV71LMoDgfzLctZrg1njdVFDii893p095AXSldgAdawJQHMbEauKiyZzSOSCsn
+SjRIhIO+Ryf8Y9dcVO3aIZ2i041rO5SN6kCagvPMvSSqS1oixLl4wr++79rl2ml
two70Y+fYo3SMDZsuQ3VMFk5LuHQWECx1OrCA+GsRwlkmNFXfkwQpDX+3D+oHNc9
GWgeYOwM/Gb9fa+JMqO0VM6evZfSeIl7WeqLEsNzwaoTXpGMBUaGaF9NzGGl9x61
XMBShLGS+EFvde4VDCLfMHL0X+Ub4kzCD0nkv4fo971AOrBOJHMEM7s+bToMtus=
=8H1T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_3249B38A-6A43-4129-B023-2426BB90E755--