I think this not right or misleading.
Who can really reject his patches? Only Gavin, right? Gavin won't reject his patches because they are buddies ...
That's why people are asking for a different way to stop Hearns involvement.
You guys don't hang around github much:
Enable tx replacement on testnet. (closed)Drop fees by 10x due to the persistently higher exchange rate. (not getting merged)Gavin doesn't have magical merge-by-fiat powers either:
Remove hard-coded fee rules (closed)Relay first-double-spend transactions (not getting merged)Nor does he have magical powers over the Bitcoin Foundation bylaws:
Add promotion and protection of decentralization to purposesEven in the centralized development structure arguing things intelligently goes a long way, and when your ideas get
rejected in that central repository you can always take them elsewhere, or even to a
different currency altogether.
Yes you are the only working on it, and I surprise this isn't bigger issue. It should be something that should be worked on by all the top devs. "They" are the foundation and no I am not going to start an argue about how the foundation has nothing to do with the bitcoin codebase, which we all know at this time isn't true.
Pieter Wuille is doing the bulk of the work getting pruning implemented actually. It's just taking awhile because the changes he needs to make to the networking code to enable it are quite complex and risky - he's already had to throw out his first attempt at solving it.
As for other scalability issues, Gregory Maxwell, Adam Back, Andrew Miller, Mark Freidenbach, and yes, Mike Hearn are all working on various aspects of the problem, among others. It's just a very, very hard problem.
Lets be honest peter we all know that no one is going to use the openPGP code, bitpay has already come out in support and that will make their merchants use that and coinbase (which I love and have great support for) is going to use it since Gavin is on the board. I mean to implement openPGP code would waste my funds and my time.
OpenPGP is actually most interesting, and obviously valuable, for the person-to-person case; you're money would do good things there. (Dark Wallet people are interested in this too fwiw)
People who control development control the future of Bitcoin. Better get used to it.
People who do development, control development...