Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_27FDF82E-752B-44BA-BE4F-A4085C2492C4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:32:55 -0700
Message-Id: <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com>
References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li>
	<55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
	<e786da226b8e9cfaad335454b299ffd5@cock.li>
	<CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_27FDF82E-752B-44BA-BE4F-A4085C2492C4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev =
<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). =20

It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple implementations =
of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the network's dependency on =
Core. =20

Best regards,
Peter R


--Apple-Mail=_27FDF82E-752B-44BA-BE4F-A4085C2492C4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=us-ascii

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div><div>On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev =
&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div =
dir=3D"ltr">Even so, <b>decentralization is a means to an end</b> - not =
an end-goal.&nbsp; It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful =
alternative, of course.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>I agree. =
&nbsp;What about decentralization in development? &nbsp;Gavin recently =
said that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple =
robust implementations of the core =
protocol."</div><div><br></div><div>When I look at this image (<a =
href=3D"https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif">https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif</=
a>) illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and development, the =
biggest source of concern for me is the 85% node share around Bitcoin =
Core. &nbsp;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). =
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>It is my opinion, then, that we should =
support multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to =
reduce the network's dependency on Core. =
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Peter =
R</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></b=
ody></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_27FDF82E-752B-44BA-BE4F-A4085C2492C4--