1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C452B156C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com (mail-qk0-f173.google.com
[209.85.220.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 394F9157
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkct7 with SMTP id t7so35614241qkc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=l3SggihYbwq4dOALttDjLzSgskyYIjspZNPJxHTfTaw=;
b=qvfS0HCLDO+rApaFTIWqItEGzqp+0LS5AAobDWj8Ar/11KEbsFaOiwYJ0oyJMwzpip
feTLAU3mx+eJuA2stOUJU4Lpwmm2PWeUK1+2jHlog02b6re8tVY4HD6Zia0UFbAhvhyE
3VHVKjtx/SPRPJEgQ8IfCdEmIVVBYFVmIEuQgFgaH6br5gLP6A7OLt3kbL1bgYqRljmg
CiyE3cpksjLYQJ/5tPgSR0A4bRG6M7ZdKEBw9O4s1I2kjFU6WXbyzP5C4YzmIT81gb6L
aISVT/laXkTiyNgfWYpYyAQHBrpfgt8BbnTJSRvbZiDBfBhWvVCcrw0dSNyVXU9I+20i
KH3A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.49.3 with SMTP id x3mr19748643ywx.56.1441110277498; Tue,
01 Sep 2015 05:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.229.72 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 05:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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>
<CC252814-9AF6-4A28-926E-EE83C517E440@gmx.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:24:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCuFSUDvQ8bBRAtQT2mMPmLoRD9wXuiJZW3A4jKaVXVhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <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
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 12:24:38 -0000
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree, s7r, that Bitcoin Core represents the most stable code base. To
What about the people that like stability, that appreciate bitcoin as
a "digital gold", and like all this 'excitement' like a hole in the
head?
Instead of creating hardforks and all the drama around it I'd
encourage to do your experiments on sidechains, or altcoins. Forks of
the bitcoin chain wil needlessly confuse matters, especially if they
all gain their share of users. In theory an hardfork would be no
different than an altcoin with shared history, but without proper
measures "crosstalk" between forks of the same chain can make for a
messy separation.
(A fact often ignored, because those proposing forks assume they can
just run over people on the other side of the fork by sake of their
popularity)
Also please don't confuse alternative implementations of the node
software - btcd, obelisk, etc - that try to implement the consensus
rules as faithfully as they can, or even use bitcoin core's consensus
code directly - with deliberate rule changes as done in bitcoin XT.
The former can cause an accidental fork (which will probably be
repaired), the latter exist to split off their chain.
Wladimir
|
