Quote from: Peter R on August 27, 2015, 06:36:45 PM

Quote from: readysalted89 on August 27, 2015, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 27, 2015, 06:13:54 PM

Quote from: qwk on August 27, 2015, 04:04:27 PM

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly. What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

That's not a bad idea. I don't like the control the two competing teams of devs are exerting over what path Bitcoin takes. The more choices of implementations there are, the more choice he miners have over the path Bitcoin takes. If the miners chose to go with a new set of devs it could end this mess we are in.

I agree! It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up. I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran.

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations. When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular. The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT