On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It is > essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course. I agree. What about decentralization in development? Gavin recently said that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." When I look at this image (https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif) illustrating centralization in nodes, mining and development, the biggest source of concern for me is the 85% node share around Bitcoin Core. With this level of centralization, it may be possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin community). It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the network's dependency on Core. Best regards, Peter R
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
