Please point me to the clause in NYA that "fires Core." The NYA was agreement, a compromise, to get both SegWit and a 2MB block activated.
So dev centralization worst case is protocol stagnation: network intact. Miner centralization worst case, otoh, reduces network security.
-
-
You call protocol stagnation and killing off Bitcoin as a payment system before secure alternatives are ready as network being intact? ....
-
Protocol stagnation won't kill Bitcoin. Stability promotes a healthy ecosystem. No clear consensus in changes == keeping current consensus.
-
Theres no such thing as "protocol stagnation". Stable protocols built the web we know today. Whoever says "protocol stagnation" is very dumb
-
On the contrary, one can argue many problems with the Internet are due to the protocol being fixed and lacking in many aspects.
-
One example is the insane complexity & convolution of the web development stack.
-
Another example is TCP/IP didn't consider trust at the protocol layer. Resulted in a less secure, more vulnerable Internet.
-
So yes a fixed protocol gives you stability but don't kid yourself that it's the best we've got ;)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Everything in Bitcoin involves trade-offs. Genius of Satoshi was to select the correct ones. Single implementation is another example.
-
It increases the risk of dev centralization but the alternative is multiple clients which make consensus harder to achieve. Again, tradeoff.
-
Everything considered there are risks to dev centralization but the benefits far outweigh the costs. Not true with aspects like mining.
-
"Centralization" has many aspects, some more critical than others. Ppl tend to conflate all of them. Balaji's posthttps://news.21.co/quantifying-decentralization-e39db233c28e …
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
