5 ms·
If you look at what Pieter Wuelle is doing, he's also doing amazing work, but when it comes to make decisions, he goes to the background even if he has an opini
by xiphias2 6y ago
If you look at what Pieter Wuelle is doing, he's also doing amazing work, but when it comes to make decisions, he goes to the background even if he has an opinion.
I don't see the same thing happening to Vitalik. I'm not saying it's a problem, as Ethereum is a different network with different advantages and disadvantages, but he still looks like the final decision maker to me at this point (which is OK for me).
- hanniabu 6y agoI disagree in factually but I agree in optics and I think him being so active makes it easy to get that impression.
- xiphias2 6y agoCan you give me an example where he purposefully declined to give his opinion to make sure that people are impartial?
- hanniabu 6y agoNope, and simply I don't believe that matters. If you have a meeting with 100 people that doesn't mean you shouldn't talk just because you organized it. Everyone has a voice and an opportunity to state their ideas and concerns.
- chrisco255 6y agoDoes this happen in other open source software projects? My understanding is that Linus Torvalds was pretty opinionated as well. Linux is better off for it.
- xiphias2 6y agoYes, but Bitcoin is special in that it aims to be as decentralized as possible. Ethereum aims to move fast, that’s why it needs a leader. Both are great projects, and both approaches have tradeoffs.
- DennisP 6y agoDoes Bitcoin still have one main implementation, which is considered the standard in place of a spec? Because ETH2 has four production implementations, developed by different teams in different languages. ETH1 has two in common use, one written in Go and one in Rust. All open source of course. If Bitcoin still runs on a single implementation then I'd argue its development is more centralized.
- hanniabu 6y agoGreat response