pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby 11 Jun \ on: Other clients are a menace bitcoin
The last time a lot of people were talking about alternate implementations was when there was that bug in btcd that caused a bunch of LND nodes to go down. I remember some people reacting strongly to it, going so far as to say: we need to match Bitcoin Core even down to the bugs.
I run Bitcoin Core and think it's an excellent project. By far the most reviewed node implementation, and I think the way they think about transaction relay is incredibly thoughtful. But I'd love to live in a world where we have more implementations. Bitcoin would certainly be a stronger project if we had two or three well-reviewed node implementations to choose from.
If Bitcoin Core shipped a bug that allowed inflation or some kind of fork, and some of these other nodes (Knots, Libbitcoin, btcd) didn't have that bug, which chain would be the "real" bitcoin?
No. This is ethereum talking points. That brain dead shitcoin believes that client diversity is a strength. I know that Satoshi warned us of this.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core. Everything else is a simulation.
reply
When Core shipped the inflation bug in 2017 (CVE-2018-17144) and other implementations did not have it, Core could have forked itself off from what we all know as Bitcoin.
I don't see why client diversity harms bitcoin. Do you think this is because consensus is so complicated we can't reliably achieve the same consensus with a second code base?
reply
100% this. Client diversity absolutely harms Bitcoin. For some reason, nobody remembers that Satoshi warned against this very scenario very early on.
I’ve heard people say “Satoshi was wrong about client diversity”, but they were usually ethereum people. So far, in this post, not even that!
reply