On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 23:11:38 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I think it's great that people want to experiment with things like > drivechains/sidechains and what not, but their security model is very > distinct from Bitcoin's and, given the current highly centralized > mining ecosystem, arguably not very good. So positioning them as a > major solution for the Bitcoin project is the wrong way to go. Instead > we should support people trying cool stuff, at their own risk. > > So, given that although the vast majority of the things in the document > are things I've been supporting for months (Please see Note 1 way down > at the bottom) I cannot support your document.
I”m thinking along the same lines, a industry wide roadmap makes very little sense. Much like in Linux we have a lot of smaller groups doing their own thing, all working for the good of Linux as they see it, and implicitly, as they use it. I think its safe to say that Linus would not want any say over the roadmap of Intel or Google or any other particpant in the Linux space. I am in agreement with Gregory that we should reject a Bitcoin-wide scaling roadmap. I do suggest that smalle groups publish their individual roadmaps, show what they are planning to work on in a place that people will find it (a website, not a mailinglist archive). Those individual roadmaps then show what that group will work on, which helps their communication. It helps people talking about Bitcoin to the general public as well, and it helps people understand whom they would like to support financially or otherwise. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
