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
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
|
Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CD0E143D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
[162.222.225.25])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5638E14E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (unknown [171.25.193.26])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org)
by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 740EB3603C5;
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
s=20110108; t=1441064884;
bh=9IfJ6d3XyEg3BhsG41zUG1hNG5O2myttnJWN5STho2M=;
h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
b=fTyiI/0ezuGRbSkqnrditgfEnEmNA3K5lHJVnH/e6R4pEugGx2kPLiTD6Hmp2ddYq
fkyD/8h7Pd1an08Y7ppFORN/XlCTPFjQ9Sz1Kl7WezmbhNI4jrM6cWD5ruMKwWBLAy
ArByWW/f+uw0lyQ1kPZynRq+HYXFVfhesvpwCNpo=
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>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>, Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:47:54 +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: <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bv+xfxui c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=YHXQ0UFKalyz39KtzFBdyA==:117 a=YHXQ0UFKalyz39KtzFBdyA==:17
a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=maeoKwE7AAAA:20 a=1eroyh28dsUhoY0RlL8A:9
a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.93
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:13 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV5OeqAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRRsoIAMmdyeE+Sro14NIHy6jQqTH3
JdkhUg6lg7S58tqs7ahQ/U2QGMPLaQae9yv3NidKpyqzL0YXtc2+r7RDBp0p2L4O
ieBJfJRBDwjjHYun+h7VTkPRbFGoBs/vwtTahd+uxUjwdEhiOxI2Q8pY8dLbdmJz
5lyA3TIcOVy3FjGYp3ji8aBQkw4o9OZbgmY/iCmVONgup96+81/FdR8P6wwdi3tg
Hep+4iU5Z+RHVE0sQhJDgl8Rw2oY6cmfxOCdFalRAASfZClkMfZok7eDE5yWtUbE
tn9tEP82tc3OwZCC+XvpVggVWnCp/rGZFslfTdiWXWeLXhs+JLf0hWet4/SWCT0=
=zQ9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
