On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/5/2015 1:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator contributors
>> that disagree.
>
> Since Gavin Andresen chose you to be one of 4 people who decides whose
> contributions are accepted to the Core project, shouldn't you recuse
> yourself from referencing "regular contributor" as some kind of bar to
> an opinion being worthy?
>
> You don't want to be accused of squelching a person's opinions by
> nacking or sitting on commits, then turning around and branding those
> opinions as worthless because they are not from a "regular contributor."
> Do you?

Great point, Tom!

In fact, you’ve just explained the dynamics that create “centralizing pressure” in regards to development:  If the weight of a person’s opinion is proportional to how many commits that person has made, and if the probability of getting a commit pulled is proportional to the weight of that person’s opinion, well…I’m pretty sure this results in a differential equation that has a solution that results in ever-increasing centralized control of the code base.
 
Really great stuff, Mr. R! We can use differential equations to measure centralization pressure (I'm pretty sure, good idea). If we want decentralization (or even mere stability), we must impose a counterbalancing rule such that each past commit makes one *less* likely to get their next commit pulled. For example, a "one man one commit" policy.
 

I believe we should work to deprecate the idea that Core is somehow the “core of Bitcoin," in favour of multiple competing implementations. XT and btcd are two working examples of this idea.  Let’s make it easier for the community to determine the evolution of Bitcoin by making it easier for the community to express their vote based on the code we choose to run.

Yes, this is essential. Greg, stop making it so hard for me to  determine the evolution of Bitcoin by making it hard to express my vote based on the code I choose to run. Blockstream is always doing that I am sick of it.

Mr. R really understands these concepts at a deep level and people need to pay more attention to what he has to say. Nash equilibriums are very important mathematical concept, for example:  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nhq5a/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
 

Best regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev