Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

[Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>]

I think that's fair, so long as we limit bitcoin-development discussion to
issues that are relevant to the owners of the hashrate and companies that
pay developer salaries.

What I'm asking for is some honesty that Bitcoin is a centralized system
and to stop arguing technical points on the altar of distributed/decentralized
whatever. It's pretty clear if you want decentralized you should go with 
altchains.

I'm here because I want to sell corn for bitcoin, and I believe it will be
more profitable for me to do that with a bitcoin-blockchain-based system
in which I have the capability to audit the code that executes the trade.


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:53:48PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> This isn't distributed-systems-development, it is bitcoin-development.
> Discussion over chain parameters is a fine thing to have among people
> who are interested in that sort of thing. But not here.
> 
> On 03/23/2014 04:17 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > I find it very irresponsible for Bitcoiners to on one hand extol the virtues
> > of distributed systems and then in the same message claim any discussion
> > about alternate chains as 'off-topic'.
> > 
> > If bitcoin-core is for *distributed systems*, then all the different altcoins
> > with different hash algorithms should be viable topics for discussion.