Quote from: dserrano5 on June 26, 2015, 08:31:55 AM

Quote from: GreenStox on June 26, 2015, 02:27:54 AM

Quote from: dserrano5 on June 25, 2015, 10:31:26 AM

Quote from: cryptoboy.architect on June 25, 2015, 10:03:17 AM

what if the developers themselves are coerced to sneak something in?

This is certainly a problem in bitcoin XT where only one? two? individual(s) have commit access.

You can still download it and check it does it?

Also when a release comes out, it usually has a checksum and a signature, any alteration after the release is easily detactable..

So if wallet 2.0 comes out, and it has a hash, but if you sneak something shady in it after, it wont match the hash of the 2.0.

My concern is after people have switched to XT due do the 8 Mb max block size. In that scenario, and assuming they will be coerced to put some unwanted code (eg. CoinValidationand Hearn was pretty much for that IIRC), how are we going to switch back to Bitcoin Core? We can pretty much assume we won't, with the result that TPTB will have successfully co-opted bitcoin.

I'd rather see the 8 Mb change in Core, or stay at 1 Mb until more people have governance over XT.

If we reach the point where Bitcoin XT forks the blockchains, and has enough support to matter, perhaps I'll put together a wallet that maintains both blockchains in the same wallet. That would allow users to access either one, and would provide some competition to prevent Hearn and his associates from implementing unpopular features. If it comes to that, I'll see about creating some sort of diverse group to handle decisions regarding the software.