4 ms·

Why should there be One True Bitcoin implementation? What should be worked on is creating an official protocol specification, which would allow competing implem

by aedron 11y ago

Why should there be One True Bitcoin implementation? What should be worked on is creating an official protocol specification, which would allow competing implementations, that miners could freely choose from. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

rsi_oww 11y ago
Everyone needs to follow the One True Ledger, or you can't know if Bob really sent you $100 of Bitcoins that will be accepted by Joe. There are already competing implementations like btcd written in Go. That's not the issue. This post is from a developer who is part of a small group in the bitcoin world, who want to change the rules of the protocol. Anyone that did not follow those rule changes would see a different ledger. That's not something that should be done in bitcoin - changes this big should be very hard to pull off, and require consensus of all parties. Most are strongly against these changes because it does not really do much, makes the network more centralized, and mainly because there are much better options to reach the same goal (that are being worked on right now).
- hitekker 11y ago
  "One True Ledger" Oh boy.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
That would make sense, but sadly hasn't happened. Bitcoin has become defined by Satoshi's original C++ implementation.
- eterm 11y ago
  It's not even the original that has the 1MB limit. That was added later as a temporary measure. Satoshi said that it could be increased and heavily implied it would be increased long before it acted as a limit to transaction amounts. But I expect someone will be along shortly to "correct" my understanding. As a neutral (I own no bitcoin), the whole thing is very dogmatic, very messy and looks like it's about control not about the limit at all. In fact many core devs were previously arguing for increasing the limit until it became clear that that position wasn't compatible with their position in core. Outsiders see core as having been corrupted by the wishes of blockstream VC money. Pro-core see all outsiders as a conspiracy trying to wrestle control away. In short, it's a complete mess.

by aedron 11y ago

rsi_oww 11y ago

Everyone needs to follow the One True Ledger, or you can't know if Bob really sent you $100 of Bitcoins that will be accepted by Joe. There are already competing implementations like btcd written in Go. That's not the issue. This post is from a developer who is part of a small group in the bitcoin world, who want to change the rules of the protocol. Anyone that did not follow those rule changes would see a different ledger. That's not something that should be done in bitcoin - changes this big should be very hard to pull off, and require consensus of all parties. Most are strongly against these changes because it does not really do much, makes the network more centralized, and mainly because there are much better options to reach the same goal (that are being worked on right now).

hitekker 11y ago
"One True Ledger" Oh boy.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

That would make sense, but sadly hasn't happened. Bitcoin has become defined by Satoshi's original C++ implementation.

eterm 11y ago
It's not even the original that has the 1MB limit. That was added later as a temporary measure. Satoshi said that it could be increased and heavily implied it would be increased long before it acted as a limit to transaction amounts. But I expect someone will be along shortly to "correct" my understanding. As a neutral (I own no bitcoin), the whole thing is very dogmatic, very messy and looks like it's about control not about the limit at all. In fact many core devs were previously arguing for increasing the limit until it became clear that that position wasn't compatible with their position in core. Outsiders see core as having been corrupted by the wishes of blockstream VC money. Pro-core see all outsiders as a conspiracy trying to wrestle control away. In short, it's a complete mess.