> It's a free market
it most certainly is not. regardless whether you agree or not with the current blocksize debate, it is undeniable that the supply of blockspace is under the centralized control of the bitcoin-core developers. That's just a fact.
it most certainly is not. regardless whether you agree or not with the current blocksize debate, it is undeniable that the supply of blockspace is under the centralized control of the bitcoin-core developers. That's just a fact.
You don't need Bitcoin core's permission to run classic or XT, just go run it. You're not going to be thrown in jail. And convince the miners to run it too. Others have tried and haven't been successful not because of core, but because the majority isn't convinced that the potential advantages outweigh the disadvantages at this point in time.
Or maybe I'm naive and there is some small block conspiracy that runs the show.
What I'd love to see is if core would simply stop all development (maybe after the HF and SigWit) and focus 100% on developing an RFC describing the protocol (bugs and all) in detail. Once that's done then we can feel comfortable running other nodes that are compliant and there can be true competition. Then we can work on a steering committee that can manage the development of the protocol. Because 5 developers acting as economists/central bankers is not the way to go.
XT and classic certainly have different consensus rules from core once their activated, that's the whole point of their existence.
I think you're referencing bip 34, but I don't see how that's relevant.
we are in uncharted territories here and I for one hope core's monopoly over the Eco-system is broken. we'll all be better for it