There's no problem with different implementations.
Exactly. The prolem is:
Some people believe otherwise: that all Bitcoin code must emanate from Bitcoin Core. For them the idea of providing alternatives and allowing the free market to decide is threatening. Hence the smear campaign to brand XT as an altcoin and forbid discussion of it in various public fora nevermind the screaming irony of trying to censor discussion of a censorship-resistant piece of software. Hence the outright DDoS attacks against miners who mine on XT and the pools that permit them.
We are told by these people that Bitcoin is too fragile to permit alternative clients in other words, miners may vote with their CPUs, but they must have the option of voting only for one Party. We know what an election with only one choice is called: Totalitarianism.
If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.
Some people argue that the block size will be raised, but only after it reaches a certain pain threshold. Here I personally side with Mike: you dont smear alternatives, break apart online communities, and outright DDoS your competitors because you agree on everything except for timing. Those are the actions of people who perceive a threat.https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11