On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
