To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <eme6e53f4a-40c6-4b6f-8cf1-b2e8d9905e9d@platinum>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <55FF3878.4060501@bitcoins.info>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:51:36 -0400
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: <eme6e53f4a-40c6-4b6f-8cf1-b2e8d9905e9d@platinum>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
Precedence: list

>Some of us have also been actively working towards developing
> a more modular, layered architecture and better implementations that
> will afford greater decentralization in software development with less
> need for critical code reviews, less pushback from downstream developers
> who must continuously rebase, a better process for building consensus in
> the community, and simpler app migration.

It sounds more efficient but it is not clear to me that it would change 
the level of centralization of how the final decisions are made.

One threat to Bintcoin involves incentive for companies to hire 
developers.  The only reason is to change (or not change) Bitcoin Core 
so it is beneficial to their interests.  I am not sure anything can be 
done about that risk but it needs to be understood and considered and 
not just ignored.

> We need to increase the basic infrastructure nodes by a factor much
> larger than 2 or 3...more like 100 or 1000...and it's entirely doable
> with properly aligned incentives.

I assume that would mean fees that hike transaction fees and make 
Bitcoin more expensive?

Russ