Centralized influence for decentralized projects is good. @VitalikButerin's influence on dev direction is a strength. Leaderless OSS w/ many parties collaborating on improvements becomes design-by-committee. Committees add uncontroversial features, they don't reenvision
-
Show this thread
-
Example from p2p era: • Gnutella (protocol for Limewire, BearShare): leaderless • eDonkey: central leader (
@JedMcCaleb) Gnutella community made conservative improvements. eDonkey created an entirely new protocol and client ("Overnet") a fully decentralized DHT-based protocolpic.twitter.com/nj4dB4nz7S
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
The eDonkey competed with eMule, an open source project started with the goal of being a better client. When Overnet came out, the eMule community made their own DHT-based protocol ("Kad network"). Leaderless community forks seem to focus on incremental improvement and cloning
0 replies
1 retweet
7 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.