From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CD0E143D for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5638E14E for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (unknown [171.25.193.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 740EB3603C5; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:00 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org; s=20110108; t=1441064884; bh=9IfJ6d3XyEg3BhsG41zUG1hNG5O2myttnJWN5STho2M=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=fTyiI/0ezuGRbSkqnrditgfEnEmNA3K5lHJVnH/e6R4pEugGx2kPLiTD6Hmp2ddYq fkyD/8h7Pd1an08Y7ppFORN/XlCTPFjQ9Sz1Kl7WezmbhNI4jrM6cWD5ruMKwWBLAy ArByWW/f+uw0lyQ1kPZynRq+HYXFVfhesvpwCNpo= Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li> <55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com> To: Peter R , Allen Piscitello From: s7r X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55E4E7AA.6010905@sky-ip.org> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:47:54 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A3D7824-F1E3-421B-A32A-0EF21DD215BD@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bv+xfxui c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=YHXQ0UFKalyz39KtzFBdyA==:117 a=YHXQ0UFKalyz39KtzFBdyA==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=maeoKwE7AAAA:20 a=1eroyh28dsUhoY0RlL8A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.93 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:48:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Decentralization depends on the context and does not have a definition in a form that it was demanded... I can confirm we have people in our community which do understand decentralization, and quite good actually, just there is no definition if the form demanded. It is known that ~90% (at least of the nodes accepting incoming connections) are running Bitcoin Core software. This does not mean that Bitcoin is somehow less decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open source, it has many contributors from all over the world and there are many pull requests - most of them do get merged if you check the commit history. It is widely used because the quality of the code is 5 stars. There are other implementations as well, they are just not widely used. This does not mean one is not free to write his own implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (assuming he follows the consensus rules of the network). The biggest problem is convincing users to adopt that implementation, which is a normal thing which happens in general, not only related to software implementations. The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to try other implementations as well, but something serious, because Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with. This is the reason why a lot of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core rather than writing their own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin Core stronger, better, and obviously the result is that it has majority in the ecosystem for good reasons. If I'm experienced in a certain segment related to software developing, I am better of in contributing to Bitcoin Core just with the part I know instead of writing from scratch my own implementation. On 9/1/2015 2:32 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > >> Even so, *decentralization is a means to an end* - not an >> end-goal. It is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, >> of course. > > I agree. What about decentralization in development? Gavin > recently said that he wants to "get to the point where there will > be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." > > When I look at this image (https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif) > illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and development, the > biggest source of concern for me is the 85% node share around > Bitcoin Core. With this level of centralization, it may be > possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important > changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their > interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin > community). > > It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple > implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the > network's dependency on Core. > > Best regards, Peter R > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV5OeqAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRRsoIAMmdyeE+Sro14NIHy6jQqTH3 JdkhUg6lg7S58tqs7ahQ/U2QGMPLaQae9yv3NidKpyqzL0YXtc2+r7RDBp0p2L4O ieBJfJRBDwjjHYun+h7VTkPRbFGoBs/vwtTahd+uxUjwdEhiOxI2Q8pY8dLbdmJz 5lyA3TIcOVy3FjGYp3ji8aBQkw4o9OZbgmY/iCmVONgup96+81/FdR8P6wwdi3tg Hep+4iU5Z+RHVE0sQhJDgl8Rw2oY6cmfxOCdFalRAASfZClkMfZok7eDE5yWtUbE tn9tEP82tc3OwZCC+XvpVggVWnCp/rGZFslfTdiWXWeLXhs+JLf0hWet4/SWCT0= =zQ9s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----