Quote from: Lauda on September 24, 2018, 02:20:37 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on September 24, 2018, 01:41:50 PM

It seems to me that what we're observing here is central planers trying to defend their monopoly.

If you believe that there are central planers and a monopoly, then you don't understand Bitcoin.

Quote from: piotr_n on September 24, 2018, 01:41:50 PM

And the fact that central planners have been stating for quite long that they "don't care about miners" is most likely only going to accelerate the process.

Miners are often idiots and don't decide anything (they shouldn't anyways).

Quote from: piotr_n on September 24, 2018, 01:41:50 PM

So if Bitcoin is here to stay, new implementations coming into existence are inevitable.

Many have tried.

Quote from: Lauda on September 24, 2018, 12:10:40 PM

this is given that you completely ignore that any attempt at a secondary implementation so far has been amateurish at best.

Quote from: piotr_n on September 24, 2018, 01:41:50 PM

And no matter how much you'd want to, you can't stop anyone from running a compatible yet alternative implementation of a bitcoin node.

If you want to, then you're free to swim in second-grade garbage.

No, sir. Your jealous comments are amateurish at best.

My software might not have been tested as much as satoshi's code base, but its proven to be working very well, has an excellent performance and it's very easy to work with because of its brilliant architecture.
Plus, most of all, it would not have accepted a block with a transaction that spends the same input twice, nor crash upon it. Which is what all this thread is about.