Bitcoin is decentralized. Its protocol development, its client development...

[Coincomm]

Its protocol development, its client development should be as well. BIP and other structures are fine and all but nobody should have a monopoly on any part of Bitcoin development. Central points are easy to be consumed and slanted towards anyone's game.

Somebody in the Wikipedia community is trying to make bitcoin.org, Bitcoin-Qt and Bitcoind the official games in town. Other implementations and alternative methods of protocol development shouldn't be given a shot in their eyes. They want the Bitcoin article named after Bitcoin.org.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Let's make sure the right thing is done.

[1715157426]

1715157426

[1715157426]

1715157426

[1715157426]

1715157426

[Fluttershy]

Wouldn't this just lead to more forks in the blockchain?

[Coincomm]

Wouldn't this just lead to more forks in the blockchain?

There is nothing wrong with a fork. People should have the right to disagree with the current blockchain and form their own.

Consensus will sort out the rest.

[Coincomm]

I'm confused about the issue.

Can you point me toward some other clients that are full nodes which the protocol requires?

The protocol doesn't require anything. Satoshi never wrote that the protocol was authoritative. The Bitcoind protocol is not authoritative. People have the right to run thin-clients and then meet the need of verification as it comes. If a need is important, it will be met.

Nobody needs to be forced to do anything or obey anyone. It's the whole point of Bitcoin: Decentralization.

[Coincomm]

I'm confused about the issue.

Can you point me toward some other clients that are full nodes which the protocol requires?

The protocol doesn't require anything. Satoshi never wrote that the protocol was authoritative. The Bitcoind protocol is not authoritative. People have the right to run thin-clients and then meet the need of verification as it comes. If a need is important, it will be met.

Nobody needs to be forced to do anything or obey anyone. It's the whole point of Bitcoin: Decentralization.

By "requires" I meant needed to continue to function properly.

I never mentioned authority or force. My question was genuine.

I use several alternative clients because of the fantastic features they offer, yet I still run the Satoshi client because, as far as I know, it is the only "full node".

Was your complaint that wikipedia doesn't list alternative clients? (I only browsed the page.)

My complaint is that it doesn't evoke the culture of Bitcoin. They want Bitcoin to have a central organization.

I have a question: Are miners not full nodes?

[Jutarul]

Its protocol development, its client development should be as well. BIP and other structures are fine and all but nobody should have a monopoly on any part of Bitcoin development. Central points are easy to be consumed and slanted towards anyone's game.

Somebody in the Wikipedia community is trying to make bitcoin.org, Bitcoin-Qt and Bitcoind the official games in town. Other implementations and alternative methods of protocol development shouldn't be given a shot in their eyes. They want the Bitcoin article named after Bitcoin.org.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Let's make sure the right thing is done.

What you really need is different implementations. And for that matter you need to separate client development from protocol development. Now it's a bit mingled. But that's just the problem of lack of developers.

Right now the real problem I see is that the bitcoin economy doesn't really acknowledge the importance of bitcoin software and protocol development with incentives. We have to get the question of sustaining bitcoin developers of the table - fast.

Otherwise the only way bitcoin development is gonna survive longterm is if it's piggybacking on the mining industry, which has a clear incentive structure, or some other operation which is sustainable (e.g. exchanges may have an interest to support their own client development).

[Coincomm]

My complaint is that it doesn't evoke the culture of Bitcoin. They want Bitcoin to have a central organization.

I have a question: Are miners not full nodes?

Who does? Can you elaborate?

Miners are not full nodes if they mine at a traditional pool. They submit work to a full node though.

Regular wikipedia editors and one Bitcoiner or two that edit the article.

I see. Another question: If the Bitcoin network was threatened by a lack of nodes, wouldn't the miners with financial incentive fix it?

[Fluttershy]

The main thing is that people on the receiving end of a transaction would only be able to accept the fork they're set up to process. Kind of renders the whole system useless.

Do the big trading sites accept litecoin or solidcoin or whateverthehellcoin in lieu of bitcoins and do they regard them as having the same value? That answers your question.

[Coincomm]

The main thing is that people on the receiving end of a transaction would only be able to accept the fork they're set up to process. Kind of renders the whole system useless.

Not really. If it serves people's needs, there isn't a problem.

If somebody doesn't like the fork they are on, they can change it.

[Coincomm]

My complaint is that it doesn't evoke the culture of Bitcoin. They want Bitcoin to have a central organization.

I have a question: Are miners not full nodes?

Who does? Can you elaborate?

Miners are not full nodes if they mine at a traditional pool. They submit work to a full node though.

Regular wikipedia editors and one Bitcoiner or two that edit the article.

I see. Another question: If the Bitcoin network was threatened by a lack of nodes, wouldn't the miners with financial incentive fix it?

OK, now I know who, but what are they doing again? What information did they leave out? Alternative clients? (Sorry, maybe I should read it.)

Would they? From what I've seen, no or they would be very slow to react. One pool used to linger around 50% (lets not get into a discussion about if or why that is risky) and you would think that miners had financial motives to decentralize the network. Well, it is much more decentralized today, but it took quite some time.

I think many miners would simply say, "too much effort".

So Miners would let the network be vulnerable or die out of laziness?

[DeathAndTaxes]

What is the problem exactly?  You rambled on and on without actually stating a specific complaint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Services_and_Clients

Multiple clients are listed.  The satoshi client is actually not listed first and is put in the middle of the pack.

[Coincomm]

What is the problem exactly?  You rambled on and on without actually stating a specific complaint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Services_and_Clients

Multiple clients are listed.  The satoshi client is actually not listed first and is put in the middle of the pack.

It's been edited it seems.

[JompinDox]

I'm confused about the issue.

Can you point me toward some other clients that are full nodes which the protocol requires?

The protocol doesn't require anything. Satoshi never wrote that the protocol was authoritative. The Bitcoind protocol is not authoritative. People have the right to run thin-clients and then meet the need of verification as it comes. If a need is important, it will be met.

Nobody needs to be forced to do anything or obey anyone. It's the whole point of Bitcoin: Decentralization.

By "requires" I meant needed to continue to function properly.

I never mentioned authority or force. My question was genuine.

I use several alternative clients because of the fantastic features they offer, yet I still run the Satoshi client because, as far as I know, it is the only "full node".

Was your complaint that wikipedia doesn't list alternative clients? (I only browsed the page.)

According to Ufasoft, their alternative bitcoin client is also a full node! Check the alternative clients subforum.