Author: Adam Back 2015-08-19 16:53:13
Published on: 2015-08-19T16:53:13+00:00
The author of this post argues that the notion that BIP 101 is the only solution put forward, while other proposals such as BIP 100, 102, 103, flexcap, and extension blocks have not been considered, is false. The author claims that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process and risk a controversial hard fork deployment war. The author also says that the warnings about network fork wars were ignored and the damage to community reputation and collaborative environment was predictable. The author notes that Bitcoin-XT is under tested and has privacy bugs and other issues. The author finds it notable that Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn have been radio silent on the bitcoin-dev list but are releasing a stream of media articles, blog posts, and podcasts while lobbying companies to run Bitcoin-XT without offering any neutral or balanced information packages. The author questions the timing of the release of Bitcoin-XT ahead of ongoing discussions and workshops planned to progress collaboratively. The author criticizes the developers of Bitcoin-XT for violating the "original vision" of Bitcoin by using Satoshi Nakamoto's old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. The author suggests that if two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then Bitcoin will be a failed project.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T19:50:14.020047+00:00