Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Hearn Banned from #Bitcoin-dev
by
Bit_Happy
on 02/10/2015, 00:20:16 UTC
This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.

To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”

I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.

"Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin"...
Is this possible, when we need a "vote" of 51% or higher for the network to verify blocks of any particular max size?
(Sorry, if I'm behind on current events)