📅 Original date posted:2014-06-24
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out automatically
> rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems a goal worth
> striving for.
As I've said before -- and I think we disagree here - I like moving
towards a bag of parts of specialized tools, maintained by people that
specialize in those tools, instead of a single project that aims to do
and know everything. This encourages experimentation and makes
competition possible and I think that is healthy in this space.
Bitcoin has a strict need for consensus in the block chain format,
scripting system and validation. Outside of those, innovation should
be possible without any gatekeeper bottleneck or even widespread
agreement. Wallets, what data to store on disk, what indices to
maintain. But even P2P message extensions, as long as it doesn't
interfere with the rest of the network.
After an experiment is successful it could always be merged into
bitcoin core. But then the 'what-ifers' have less ammo, as it has been
tested in the real world.
For user convenience it's still possible to package pre-assembled
bags. But that doesn't need to figure into how things are developed.
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:23:15
in reply to nevent1q…xfps
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:23:15Event JSON
{
"id": "558bc5ec31697bd74653c4c71a7ef8989977b6513c57c02275e72fae011cb6f8",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151395,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"70c0fbbfb361e1a5e33121959a54368ef9bf960fb4424bf0b260b1c5f505777b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b984f7abd4240d6fde2701b326ddfd946937e49e85e46b13afb12c76f1450ee",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-24\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e priority. So a single unified program that just figures it out automatically\n\u003e rather than expecting users to assemble a bag of parts seems a goal worth\n\u003e striving for.\n\nAs I've said before -- and I think we disagree here - I like moving\ntowards a bag of parts of specialized tools, maintained by people that\nspecialize in those tools, instead of a single project that aims to do\nand know everything. This encourages experimentation and makes\ncompetition possible and I think that is healthy in this space.\n\nBitcoin has a strict need for consensus in the block chain format,\nscripting system and validation. Outside of those, innovation should\nbe possible without any gatekeeper bottleneck or even widespread\nagreement. Wallets, what data to store on disk, what indices to\nmaintain. But even P2P message extensions, as long as it doesn't\ninterfere with the rest of the network.\n\nAfter an experiment is successful it could always be merged into\nbitcoin core. But then the 'what-ifers' have less ammo, as it has been\ntested in the real world.\n\nFor user convenience it's still possible to package pre-assembled\nbags. But that doesn't need to figure into how things are developed.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "5f5c9dc2023d01b71939803c4cb69c0698c97c3eee7d27f9271473aaf3498afb6de431d7877048a0e2c8ad9a7a8bad93e3f6ca36cdbbcfcd44c26441f9b476d3"
}