Get ready folks and start allowing competition in all Bitcoin sections/it helps!

[hv_]

Competition is GOOD for Bitcoin

We just are all unified witness of a competitor of core having found flaws in core and we had the other way around with BU weeks before.

Outcome ? - Good

We all allow competition with Fiat - Good

Miners against other miners - Good

Altcoin devs against Bitcoin - Shit - but hopefully GOOD

Business against others - GOOD

Ideas against others - GOOD

Allow real on-Chain scaling - GOOD

Allow 2nd layer stuff - GOOD

Allow open markets - GOOD

Allow transparency - GOOD


So finally get ready that core devs NEED competition to get better and we really need all devs HERE in Bitcoin.

First step in ALLOWING competition is STOP deleting 'wrong' posts (Ok - that might be also some part of competition of forums - but that's very childish...)

[btceuropen]

In any case, there will eventually be a node that will win and then Bitcoin will become a centralized network.

[hv_]

In any case, there will eventually be a node that will win and then Bitcoin will become a centralized network.

Hu ?  No - if Bitcoin is centralized the value is 0.  NOT possible. You have game theory aligned here and repulsive forces in place.

[hv_]

Shit, this was not meant to create another bitcoin BCC thingy....

[Iranus]

In any case, there will eventually be a node that will win and then Bitcoin will become a centralized network.

This makes no sense.  Anyone can run a node.

Shit, this was not meant to create another bitcoin BCC thingy....

True.  Your thread may be overrun with generic comments about Bitcoin Cash soon.
I agree with your point, to some extent.  Bitcoin is a permissionless system, and it's important to recognise that Bitcoin Core does not have infinite power, nor should it have.  I do think that people sometimes misunderstand how consensus works by smearing any proposals not approved by Bitcoin Core as an "attack" on BTC.  Meuh6879 created a nonsensical thread here, which neglected to mention that BIP 91 would not cause a chain split straight away and compared it to a mining pool having >51% of the hashrate.

However, the development team's reputation is extremely important in deciding whether to support a proposal, considering that we're dealing with a >$40,000,000,000 network here.

[hv_]

In any case, there will eventually be a node that will win and then Bitcoin will become a centralized network.

This makes no sense.  Anyone can run a node.

Shit, this was not meant to create another bitcoin BCC thingy....

True.  Your thread may be overrun with generic comments about Bitcoin Cash soon.
I agree with your point, to some extent.  Bitcoin is a permissionless system, and it's important to recognise that Bitcoin Core does not have infinite power, nor should it have.  I do think that people sometimes misunderstanding how consensus works by smearing any proposals not approved by Bitcoin Core as an "attack" on BTC.  Meuh6879 created a nonsensical thread here, which neglected to mention that BIP 91 would not cause a chain split straight away and compared it to a mining pool having >51% of the hashrate.

However, the development team's reputation is extremely important in deciding whether to support a proposal, considering that we're dealing with a >$40,000,000,000 network here.

Thx - on of your best postings ever

I try to comment only on you last point - I do not want this single dev team to be fully in charge (off all points see down) - this is too much pressure and too much a  single point of failure!

They have just too much duties and given too much power for that big number business we reached now.
In any other big business you have way better distributed teams for all that:

- Running the system ( BCM !)
- Support (different for 1- 4 levels)
- Bug Fixing
- Requirements / Project Management
- Scientific / Economic Proof - Collect Wisdom and what users need
- Dev / Code Review / Unit-Tests / Refactoring / Clean Code
- UAT Testing / Integration Testing
- Change Management
- Build Process & Deployment
- Review, Lessons Learned & Decision Making
......


This is big shit of responsibility & work!! - And given the 'friendly' atmosphere + the pressure does not really help to provide sustainable solutions - only by sheer hack (SW) & luck!

I understand miners - sorry

Friendly competition is what helps - Hope Jeff keeps it up

  

[L]

After all the securities scams from 2013, altcoins scams from 2014, we entered the ICO scams and the next thing is going to be bitcoin fork scams.

These people will try to hijack bitcoin brand and even attack bitcoin with spam transactions and DDOS services.

Prepare yourself, at least we can dump them to the floor.

[BTCLovingDude]

i just want to add two things.
1. i agree with your points but they should not be confused with what some are currently doing to take over bitcoin. with threats, with their money or hashpower.

2. it is not like bitcoin is being developer behind closed doors and closed source. you can always contribute to the existing code on existing repository. as many others are doing on github and through proper channels. you don't need to make a new repo for it and develop separately.

[hv_]

i just want to add two things.
1. i agree with your points but they should not be confused with what some are currently doing to take over bitcoin. with threats, with their money or hashpower.

2. it is not like bitcoin is being developer behind closed doors and closed source. you can always contribute to the existing code on existing repository. as many others are doing on github and through proper channels. you don't need to make a new repo for it and develop separately.

Just a very logic  aspect:  If your point 2. was fully true, why all the effort with others solution ?  This is too costly to do just for fun.

Thing is, many will argue against that there was too much 'ignore' on the on-chain scaling input there from very few people. I see this point and this needs to be opened up very neutral - again Jeff I see as a good mate - same issues have been solved in Linux same good manner.

[BTCLovingDude]

i just want to add two things.
1. i agree with your points but they should not be confused with what some are currently doing to take over bitcoin. with threats, with their money or hashpower.

2. it is not like bitcoin is being developer behind closed doors and closed source. you can always contribute to the existing code on existing repository. as many others are doing on github and through proper channels. you don't need to make a new repo for it and develop separately.

Just a very logic  aspect:  If your point 2. was fully true, why all the effort with others solution ?  This is too costly to do just for fun.

Thing is, many will argue against that there was too much 'ignore' on the on-chain scaling input there from very few people. I see this point and this needs to be opened up very neutral - again Jeff I see as a good mate - same issues have been solved in Linux same good manner.

i am not knowledgeable enough to say with complete certainty if the current on chain scaling that they propose is good or bad but the arguments against it are a lot and they even make sense.

[Iranus]

These people will try to hijack bitcoin brand and even attack bitcoin with spam transactions and DDOS services.

As I just pointed out, BCC is not an attack on Bitcoin.  Anyone can create a fork of Bitcoin - if they were all attacks on Bitcoin, Bitcoin would have died long ago.

As for hijacking the brand, there is some merit in that argument - but I think that people are letting their opinion get in the way of a neutral judgement.  When the similar fork BitCore happened, people did not perceive it to be an attack on Bitcoin, but by this poor logic it would have been.

i just want to add two things.
1. i agree with your points but they should not be confused with what some are currently doing to take over bitcoin. with threats, with their money or hashpower.

There is nothing that Bitcoin Cash could do to "take over" Bitcoin.  The two chains will act solely on market forces.  Even in the unlikely scenario that Bitcoin Cash ended up with a higher price, it would not have taken over at all.  As for hash rate, it will eventually move along with the price when there are two chains, sooner or later.

I try to comment only on you last point - I do not want this single dev team to be fully in charge (off all points see down) - this is too much pressure and too much a  single point of failure!

As long as the code is open source and anyone can contribute to the development team's code, it's fine for one team to develop the reference client.  There should definitely be competition and people should definitely recognise that other clients exist, but there are problems with having too many implementations at once.

Satoshi mentioned this as well:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

What people need to know is that development teams do not have real power.  Development teams just develop, and Bitcoin users/miners/nodes decide what code to follow.  So different proposals do not need the support of Bitcoin Core.