I suspect most of the people who are insisting on this idea, multiple implementations, are just taking advantage of an incident to retaliate against Core team. I'm sure about you not being such a person but I afraid you don't completely get how irrelevant and dangerous is this proposal.
Satoshi's original software was just like 3K lines of code, now we have bitcoin core with 100K lines and every software engineer knows what does it mean and how inevitable is having bug issues. Actually it is very impressive that an unexploited bug is the worst incident of its kind after like 10 years and Core guys deserve a lot of kudos for the job they have accomplished till now.
Now instead of a decent technical discussion about how and why this bloat happened and what measures should be taken to manage the risks involved, we are watching biased actors
Putting aside the absurdity of someone who argues against any and all off chain solutions and believes every future development can be nowhere other than on layer 0 having the gall to use the word "bloat" in a sentence without a hint of irony...
How about, instead of gross generalisations and dismissing thousands of lines of code as "
bloat", you name the
specific parts of the code that you believe aren't needed? This will greatly expedite the moment someone can tell you why you're wrong and we can all move on.
Fair enough if we're ruling out alternative implementations due to security concerns. It was only a suggestion based on the conventional wisdom of "
not putting all your eggs in one basket". But, considering that you are someone who has launched multiple lengthy tirades against the current direction this project is moving in as of late, if you're using this as another opportunity to take cheap shots at LN, you can add yourself to the list of biased actors who are taking advantage of this incident.