Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
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>
	<CC252814-9AF6-4A28-926E-EE83C517E440@gmx.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Message-ID: <55E6216B.8080803@sky-ip.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:06:35 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CC252814-9AF6-4A28-926E-EE83C517E440@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green
 shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

That would be very wrong and cause a lot of problems and 'political
chaos' without solving at least one (technical) problem in exchange.

Bitcoin Core is a good quality code. It is open source and free.
Anyone can contribute and submit small changes, improvements.
Controversial changes are not easily merged not because the
maintainers do not want, but because they represent a threat to the
entire ecosystem, one way or the other. We have to very carefully
balance the gains and the risks. If we try to never reach a consensus
on purpose, this will only cause instability, and a possible result
could be that we will end up having many more weaker implementations
running in the network, decreasing the security overall and for everyone.

While I do agree with some of your points of view and I am happy to
see you advocate for 'more decentralization', please let me point you
in a better direction (I think): there is a much bigger problem than >
~90% of the full nodes running Bitcoin Core software - it is
*centralized mining (e.g. a lot of hashing power behind a single full
mining node)*.

On 9/1/2015 5:16 AM, Peter R wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action.  Creative 
> destruction.  Consensus formed simply by the code that gets run.
> 
> *Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of 
> new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.  *
> 
> Sincerely, Peter R
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV5iFqAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRMvIH/RiE8BhlXPbNOQW01HBJTBOD
3H4bgaZoXuxSq2B1F4zKa/FvKJKtq7BGR3hLEj5tascqZTE2YsksRqmEednFNvbL
XOliCjees6nI/oz/aYFuz9rFoKH4cxA7bJmbvieqGSOqDt7rtClaO2JzBycilngS
F5pVGjKlprprTn4XUS8R40rfYVFbYyxaMnWBOnkgEpEAbtEvNRcASSW4HQoxuGRL
6E8mzp8f23zAv6ENxKEfQoIf5SBBfYf8v2xV+YY9JcFjwh4MAQ7zFazsChh83D42
eI01jfuh58f0DS6qGmjb++N+a/mbgmQhIC4yV4iRZKiIHp9o2xKlSv4NyEJIHlM=
=JnYI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----