Good Afternoon,
Talk about the present and the future is misguided if it concludes that
the decentralisation of a project itself is responsible even if the
operation of the project is to produce a specification, and a software
capable of performing transactions in a decentralised manner. There is
no advantage or disadvantage to the project to have several choices of
the software implementation unless buffoons are misguided and wish to
attack fungibility or consensus, which the operation of consensus must
defend, in which case use [Bitcoin Core at version
21](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/0.21) and [create a
fork](https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/quickstart/fork-a-repo) and
start developing. As you can see [Bitcoin Core version 20 has been
modified](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/branches) and no longer
passes checks similarly with version 18 which makes it more difficult to
compile make build. A person't own contributions are theirs, to delegate
is responsible, to try and create a seven headed lion to keep under
command like one would a gryphon is an infirmity.
Creating a properly delegated organisation, being a foundation for the
purpose of the maintenance of the consensus of Bitcoin a fungible
decentralised currency and the Bitcoin Core software is the sort of
thing I would easily consider but it is far more centralised to be an
operable concern. In short, as at the beginning, Bitcoin needs a few
heroes that can understand the whitepaper and write software and if the
work is too much one organisational foundation that does is correctly
stewardship. To decentralise one's own work only requires that there are
several offices available for those you employ to delegate to, but still
there requires for your project a headship.
Once the currency is fungible as you should now consider, just today
there was a public announcement that the Commonwealth Bank Of Australia
is going to allow buying and selling Bitcoin as one of its services, the
primary requirements are to defend the existing consensus as the right
of trade in every UTXO has value because of that consensus, and
particularly because of the ease of that trade.
I do not expect anybody is eligible to be dictated to in the Bitcoin
project, but people, be sensible, everybody has worked hard and the
project is becoming a success. Opportunities to further develop the
software of the coin and the protocol do not form part of the current
value, hardly. Several groaning seven headed lion's are
counterproductive if all they do is search for opportunities for change.
Change is the diametrically opposed of consensus and is consensus that
brings fungibility. You can already make any manner of instrument for
smart contract with your solicitor's office. What is necessary is the
operation of the Bitcoin protocol. The alternative to the deliberately
chosen consensus is a democracy, and you cannot build any software with
democracy, and people do not know what is good for them or they could
govern themselves. A few lessons in history assures government is
necessary to enshrine law and insist as the delegates of democracy for
its operation, to ensure a civilised and decent civility can exist.
Please, if you have concerned for Bitcoin, revoke your positions until
you fight for consensus.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
duigco.org DUIGCO API
and other projects
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
On 2021-11-05 01:17, Prayank via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hi Kate,
He is taking the most sensible way forward, decreasing bus factor.
Agree. Work being shared with other maintainers is an improvement.
Read: https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html
Interesting blog post. First paragraph talks about strange
expectations, not sure what other people expected however I expected
present maintainers will always have respect for the Founder of
Bitcoin, keep important docs in repository, website etc. forever and
respond with appropriate things if any rich scammers try to remove
anything important. Anyway that chapter is over and this PR will
always remain in history for others to see and make their own opinions
about it: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/740
What followed it (whitepaper being shared on different websites) was
true decentralization and we need something similar in other aspects
of full node implementations. Few things that can improve
decentralization:
1.More people using alternative full node implementations. Right now
98% of nodes use Bitcoin Core.
2.More people like Luke Dashjr and Amir Taaki who do not simp for
anyone. Being a contributor or maintainer in Bitcoin full node
implementation is different from other open source projects. It was
never going to be easy and it will get difficult with time,
3.More people from different countries getting involved in important
roles.
4.Few anons.
5.Individuals and organizations who fund different Bitcoin projects
should consider contributing in alternative. full node implementations
as well. Maybe start with Bitcoin Knots.
I am sure lot of people will find this controversial or disagree with
it however this is my opinion and things that I think can improve
Bitcoin. Will quote something from my recent medium post about a dev
meetup and Knots:
Accepting the problems, looking for solutions and trying to improve
things is the best approach we as engineers can follow to do better
things in Bitcoin. Irrational optimism is as toxic as irrational
pessimism.
https://prayankgahlot.medium.com/op-halloween21-and-bitcoin-knots-b8a4da4fa0bd
Only ~1337 blocks left for Taproot to activate. So cheers to another
soft fork being a success and Bitcoin improving regularly. Thanks to
everyone who contributed including reviewers. Hoping most of the
people will start using latest version of Bitcoin Core or other full
node implementations soon.
.
--
Prayank
A3B1 E430 2298 178F
Oct 21, 2021, 01:48 by mercedes.catherine.sala...@gmail.com:
Hi Owen,
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:25 PM Owen Gunden via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:47:17PM +0200, Prayank wrote:
It seems confusing to have two sites that seemingly both
represent
bitcoin core.
There is only one website which represents Bitcoin Core full
node
implementation. You can download Bitcoin Core from
https://bitcoincore.org
I also notice that, as of 22.0, Wladimir is no longer signing the
releases, and I have no trust in my gpg network of the people who
seem
to have replaced him.
He is taking the most sensible way forward, decreasing bus factor.
Read: https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html
Given the level of security at stake here, my eyebrows are raised
at
this combination of items changing (new website + new gpg signers
at the
same time).
Don't worry and build your own release;
but if you do, always verify the tree hash.
Trust signed annotated tags.
Cheers!
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
