Hacker News Reader

Comment by sonoffett | Hacker News Reader

Which source? Bitcoin is a network of computers speaking a common protocol, not one implementation. Yes Bitcoin core is governed by core. If you're not happy with core then go run a different client or go write your own.

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.

View on HN

you don't seem to understand how bitcoin works. all the nodes on the network must follow the same rules. neither classic nor XT have different consensus rules. They have change proposals, but those can't be activated until the majority of the network agrees to it - basically the miners mining X blocks out of the last 1000. The majority of miners are on core and until that changes, core is the rules.

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.

Do you honestly believe that the only way to make consensus changes is via pull requests to Bitcoin core?

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.

I think that's pretty evident both historically, and currently. name a single consensus change that was added to bitcoin, in it's 7-year history, that was not a PR to core.

Mostly because the majority thinks Core makes generally good changes. If most people agreed that someone else has made a better change, they'd use that instead.

that has nothing to do with the argument. but re your point that simply is not true either. core was simply never challenged before. all protocol developers simply contributed to core. the rift only happened due to the block size debate. all the past conflicts were about what to put in core and not to launch a competing implementation.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com