It's more like "why aren't other implementations of an open protocol being funded or developed?" besides the reference implementation.
This is sometimes met with the answer "oh, it's too complex" or "I wouldn't trust another version". Well that in itself is an issue, maybe not for now, but for the future. Maybe in 10 years [company] will employ all Core devs and then prioritize their own initiatives. Then what?
I think that this is happening right now
That does seem correct, with Knots and the libbitcoin news
Are you suggesting that knots is the implementation that is getting controlled by some big entity right now?
Oh, no, I misunderstood because I originally wrote out that I think Core needs even more forks or full rewrites.
I believe the opposite, that Core is mostly funded by companies that have specific interests, similar to the large corps that fund and contribute to Linux.
I'm not an expert by an means, but based solely on SLOC, I think it's doable to have at least 2-3 node implementations. I have not looked into libbitcoin very deeply, but maybe since they claimed recently that they can meet full consensus that it could become a viable option as well. Kind of talking out my ass now, so I'll stop.
Ok now I get you, I misunderstood your last message.
Yes we all hope to get at least 3 btc implementations evenly distributed, as of now it is way too centralized and a huge weakness. I see a lot of movement also for decentralizing mining, let’s see how the future unfolds
And keep talking man, even if out of your ass, right now the world needs more communication!
I believe you can still run bitcoin v0.1 or core 21.0 if you don't like what they doing, don't you?
Probably can, but I don't see how that solves anything except keeping people on an outdated version that maybe contain inefficiencies and security issues.
Well if you running v29 and dont like v30 don't update. Another version could have inefficiencies and security issues too, no?
I like ppl telling core to fuck off but more versions doesn't solve the problem imho
Yeah, security issues could be introduced as well, but I think we're going further from the point that it's about incentive and development goals getting pushed onto a single codebase, i.e centralized codebase and no other options besides not upgrading
