Quote from: Lauda on March 15, 2017, 07:30:47 AM

Does *anyone* reasonable still want the client of these guys to be the main one on the network? Cheesy

dynamics is compatible with many implementation. even some other "core" nodes that have been tweaked in their own repo's
and yep that includes pools who have set consensus.h & policy.h to be adjustable at runtime.

blockstreams(core) can be dynamic with only a few extra lines of code.

but blockstreams(core) want dominance and want to be the sole codebase.
imagine if blockstreams(core) achieved it withno diverse codebase of differing nodes existing.. and blockstreams(core) had a bug.
it wont be a simple copy and paste keys into an alternative while you wait to fix.. your instead stuck

diversity is good(Sipa's 2013 leveldb bug taught us that atleast)

but todays event atleast shows that core are NOT independent by not wanting to help keep things diverse.

but i do laugh that you think running BU or anything not blockstream is a "power grab".. where the truth is its actually a dilution of power and an increase of diversity by having different 'brands' on the network

which would you prefer:
diversity: a few nodes of one brand go offline due to a bug/exploit
centralist: all nodes of one brand go offline due to a bug/exploit