Quote from: jojkaart on November 04, 2012, 07:08:50 PM

Quote from: casascius on November 04, 2012, 06:56:15 PM

Quote from: jojkaart on November 04, 2012, 06:52:22 PM

This sort of a developer is dangerous to have developing Bitcoin's internal structures. I think it's better they stay away.

Which sort of developer? The one who revels in complexity, as though complexity breeds integrity? This guy is surely already busy on his first implementation of Bitcoin, in assembly language. He'll be done by 2017, assuming the architecture he's developing for is still popular enough that people will be able to run it.

Or do you mean the one who walks away? And this benefits bitcoin because the fewer clients, the better?

No, the developer you described clearly has no patience to test his code so that it works properly. We're better off without such developers.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. If you disagree with meta-chain at all, then state it as such.

Otherwise, this discussion is about two different mechanisms to achieve the same end result. My core argument is the the trie-based solution is much less complex overall, easier to implement and get right, and has numerous other benefits -- such as dead-simple rollbacks and the whole thing is parallelizable (different threads/CPUs/servers can maintain different sub-branches of a patricia tree, and report their results can easily be accumulated at the end -- this is not possible with BSTs). If you want to contribute to this discussion, then please do.