Published on: 2015-09-01T22:06:35+00:00
The discussion revolves around the idea of creating multiple implementations for Bitcoin Core, emphasizing the need to carefully balance gains and risks. Centralized mining is seen as a bigger problem than full nodes running Bitcoin Core software. Peter R suggests the creation of multiple implementations, similar to Bitcoin XT, with each group incentivized to remain compatible with other implementations. This would allow for creative destruction and prevent consensus with Bitcoin Core.Wladimir, the lead developer of Bitcoin Core, suggests that experiments should be done on sidechains or altcoins instead of forking the Bitcoin chain. He argues that forking would unnecessarily complicate matters, especially if multiple forks gained their own users. He clarifies that alternative implementations like btcd and obelisk are not the same as deliberate rule changes seen in Bitcoin XT.Chris D'Costa agrees that experimenting with the Bitcoin network on the live network or testnet would not be appropriate. He suggests creating a Bitcoin fork for unrestricted experimentation, similar to sidechains, which could provide valuable insights for future Core updates. Elements Alpha is mentioned as a technical sandbox for such experimentation.Peter R suggests an unstable Bitcoin fork allowing for experimentation, different from an altcoin. However, the lack of incentive poses a problem. Adam Back disagrees, stating that incompatible versions of consensus code competing on the network would not work. He encourages analyzing and validating proposals through testing and proposing well-validated upgrade mechanisms.The email thread discusses the risks of upgrading Bitcoin's consensus code and emphasizes the importance of everyone upgrading to the same consensus rule change. It proposes creating multiple implementations of Bitcoin Core with different scaling solutions, but discourages encouraging nodes or miners to "vote" by running different consensus rules, as it can create compatibility issues and politicize the topic.In an email conversation, Peter R inquires about Bitcoin-B associated with Blockstream. Blockstream responds that they have no interest in maintaining a separate implementation of Bitcoin at this time, as it would have negative value. Confusion arises between alternative implementations and the destructive bifurcation of the Bitcoin ledger.Creating multiple implementations would involve forking Bitcoin Core, with each group integrating innovation from other groups if desired. The idea of never reaching consensus with Bitcoin Core is suggested to encourage new implementations to fork and implement their preferred scaling solution. Users would select the winning solution based on the code they choose to run, promoting the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin. Decentralization in development is discussed to reduce dependency on Core, but convincing users to adopt new implementations poses a challenge due to the quality and popularity of Bitcoin Core.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:53:58.792916+00:00