Published on: 2021-11-09T12:49:14+00:00
In a recent conversation between Prayank and Yanmaani, the focus was on decentralization in Bitcoin full node implementations. Prayank proposed that increasing the usage of alternative full node implementations could enhance decentralization. However, Yanmaani pointed out the potential risk of consensus splits. They explored other ways to improve decentralization, including having independent contributors like Luke Dashjr and Amir Taaki, involving individuals from different countries in important roles, and funding alternative full node implementations such as Bitcoin Knots.Yanmaani raised concerns about the issue of money, stating that contributors may have less independence if their source of income is not independent. To address this, they suggested implementing a system similar to Monero's CCS or a fund controlled in a civilized and non-centralized manner to protect developers from threats to their funding. Both parties agreed that funding is a challenging problem to solve in Bitcoin due to its public good nature.The discussion also touched upon the importance of having more people from different countries taking up significant roles in Bitcoin. However, there were concerns about funding individuals from under-represented countries and the potential vulnerability of anonymous individuals funded by non-robust sources. Despite these challenges, it was emphasized that encouraging more individuals to contribute to Bitcoin's success is beneficial. The alternative scenario of smart individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds attacking Bitcoin to escape their circumstances was also highlighted.In another discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Prayank suggested that true decentralization in full node implementations goes beyond sharing the Bitcoin whitepaper. One solution proposed was to increase the usage of alternative full node implementations since the majority currently use Bitcoin Core. However, the risk of consensus splits and the inability to run personal forks in case of subversion via soft-fork hindered this suggestion. Prayank also recommended having independent contributors and maintainers like Luke Dashjr and Amir Taaki, who are not influenced by funding sources. However, the need for funding to support contributors' work posed a challenge.The involvement of individuals from different countries in important roles was also discussed. While it was initially suggested as a way to improve decentralization, concerns were raised about funding individuals in under-represented countries and the potential vulnerability to attacks on their funding. It was argued that contributors who are financially secure may be better suited for important roles. The idea of having more anonymous contributors was also explored but deemed difficult due to financial limitations and the limited benefits gained from non-robust funding sources.Furthermore, it was recommended that individuals and organizations funding Bitcoin projects should consider contributing to alternative full node implementations. However, the lack of true independence in most alternative implementations, as they need to be bug-for-bug compatible with Bitcoin Core, presented a challenge. The suggestion was made for the creation of a fund where donations could be made to support developers. This fund would be controlled in a civilized and non-centralized manner, providing some insulation for developers against threats to their contributions.The author of an email argued against the notion that decentralization alone is responsible for a project's success. They stated that multiple software implementation choices only hold value if there is an attack on fungibility or consensus. The author recommended using Bitcoin Core version 21 and creating a fork if such an attack occurs. They emphasized the importance of establishing a properly delegated organization for maintaining Bitcoin's consensus and decentralized currency. The author also mentioned the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's inclusion of buying and selling Bitcoin as one of its services, highlighting the significance of defending the existing consensus.In another email exchange, Prayank shared their perspective on improving Bitcoin's decentralization. They advocated for increased usage of alternative full node implementations like Bitcoin Knots to reduce reliance on Bitcoin Core, which currently dominates the landscape. Prayank stressed the importance of having maintainers who are independent and not influenced by any particular entity. They also expressed the need for individuals from different countries to play significant roles in Bitcoin. Additionally, Prayank suggested that organizations funding Bitcoin projects should consider supporting alternative full node implementations. They referred to a Medium post that emphasized the importance of acknowledging and addressing problems to drive improvement in engineering.The email exchange also mentioned the impending activation of Taproot, with only a limited number of blocks remaining. This milestone was seen as another success for Bitcoin's ongoing development. In response to a question about the new website and GPG signers, Prayank supported Wladimir's decision to stop signing releases, considering it a sensible move to decrease reliance on a single individual. They shared a link to a blog post by Wladimir discussing decentralization. The exchange concluded with a reminder to verify tree hashes and trust signed annotated tags when building releases.In an email thread on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, developer Owen Gunden expressed concern regarding recent changes to the Bitcoin Core project's website and release signing process. Specifically, Gunden noted that Wladimir van der Laan, the lead maintainer of Bitcoin Core, had stopped signing releases as of version 22.0.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T05:06:42.579979+00:00