Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01 📝 Original message:On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree, s7r, that Bitcoin Core represents the most stable code base. To
What about the people that like stability, that appreciate bitcoin as
a "digital gold", and like all this 'excitement' like a hole in the
head?
Instead of creating hardforks and all the drama around it I'd
encourage to do your experiments on sidechains, or altcoins. Forks of
the bitcoin chain wil needlessly confuse matters, especially if they
all gain their share of users. In theory an hardfork would be no
different than an altcoin with shared history, but without proper
measures "crosstalk" between forks of the same chain can make for a
messy separation.
(A fact often ignored, because those proposing forks assume they can
just run over people on the other side of the fork by sake of their
popularity)
Also please don't confuse alternative implementations of the node
software - btcd, obelisk, etc - that try to implement the consensus
rules as faithfully as they can, or even use bitcoin core's consensus
code directly - with deliberate rule changes as done in bitcoin XT.
The former can cause an accidental fork (which will probably be
repaired), the latter exist to split off their chain.
Wladimir
📝 Original message:On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree, s7r, that Bitcoin Core represents the most stable code base. To
What about the people that like stability, that appreciate bitcoin as
a "digital gold", and like all this 'excitement' like a hole in the
head?
Instead of creating hardforks and all the drama around it I'd
encourage to do your experiments on sidechains, or altcoins. Forks of
the bitcoin chain wil needlessly confuse matters, especially if they
all gain their share of users. In theory an hardfork would be no
different than an altcoin with shared history, but without proper
measures "crosstalk" between forks of the same chain can make for a
messy separation.
(A fact often ignored, because those proposing forks assume they can
just run over people on the other side of the fork by sake of their
popularity)
Also please don't confuse alternative implementations of the node
software - btcd, obelisk, etc - that try to implement the consensus
rules as faithfully as they can, or even use bitcoin core's consensus
code directly - with deliberate rule changes as done in bitcoin XT.
The former can cause an accidental fork (which will probably be
repaired), the latter exist to split off their chain.
Wladimir