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 4A0B7160B for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:51:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B161719C for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:51:33 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55FF3878.4060501@bitcoins.info> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:51:36 -0400 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report 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: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:51:41 -0000 >Some of us have also been actively working towards developing > a more modular, layered architecture and better implementations that > will afford greater decentralization in software development with less > need for critical code reviews, less pushback from downstream developers > who must continuously rebase, a better process for building consensus in > the community, and simpler app migration. It sounds more efficient but it is not clear to me that it would change the level of centralization of how the final decisions are made. One threat to Bintcoin involves incentive for companies to hire developers. The only reason is to change (or not change) Bitcoin Core so it is beneficial to their interests. I am not sure anything can be done about that risk but it needs to be understood and considered and not just ignored. > We need to increase the basic infrastructure nodes by a factor much > larger than 2 or 3...more like 100 or 1000...and it's entirely doable > with properly aligned incentives. I assume that would mean fees that hike transaction fees and make Bitcoin more expensive? Russ