69
70

21 CEO Balaji Srinivasan: "Decentralization doesn't mean an absence of leadership. It means a choice of many leaders." (twitter.com)

finalhedge が 投稿

全 18 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Bitcointagious [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Balaji is one of the few leaders who actually inspires confidence.

[–]packetinspector [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

I actually don't think this tweet was referring specifically to the bitcoin world. Balaji has been waxing philosophical on twitter over the last month or so. And if Classic boosters want to try to shoe-horn it into their hype campaign they might pause to note that Balaji is a ‘big fan of Blockstream’.

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/673035655979524097

[–]ibrightlyredditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Being a big fan of Blockstream and wanting competing development teams are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[–]packetinspector [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

You can't have “competing development teams” for a software project. It's a ridiculous idea. There is one development team and by a process of open, technical discussion and testing of ideas they move development forward.

If you want to support a ‘competing development team’ you fork the code and start a new project, i.e. an altcoin in the bitcoin world. That is what has always happened in the open source world if a group develops within a project that disagrees with the path the main development team is taking.

This is a strength of open source software - that someone can take the code and fork it. If you want to apply Balaji's quote to this situation then yes, open source always gives you a choice of new leaders by following them to a new project from a fork of the code.

[–]go1111111 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There is one development team and by a process of open, technical discussion and testing of ideas they move development forward.

This statement basically means that Bitcoin development is centralized to this one team.

You can say "but anyone is free to contribute to the work of the one dev team", yet this one team still has its own ways of doing things that can't be changed by new contributors. One example is "controversial consensus changes aren't allowed." You're suggesting that a single dev team should have the authority to enforce this rule for all of Bitcoin, and basically decide what 'controversial' means.

[–]zcc0nonA [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

INTERNET

[–]BTCwarrior [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Not a classic booster, but I see you seem to have a grudge against classic.

Seems to me that XT and Classic have been forcing a conversation that needed to be had. I'd prefer to stay with core (see Trace Mayer's comments on the subject) but I also want to see Bitcoin dealing with it's issues so that we can go ahead and get the adoption thing started.

Conversation is good. Putting up alternatives is good. If we all recognize that we all want a strong, functional and revolutionary Bitcoin, all to the good.

[–]packetinspector [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Conversation is good.

Conversation is what I see happening within the Core development team, which is certainly not monolithic and where a wide range of opinions are held.

Cheap political rhetoric using dishonest technical ‘arguments’, nasty bullying tactics and, from the rabid mob in /r/btc, idiotic conspiracy theories is what I see coming from the XT and Classic corporate putsch. No, I don't see much good there. Bitcoin remains a strong project despite that behaviour, not because of it.

[–]Daolandredditor for 16 days [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

doesn't "many leaders" sound like an oxymoron to any of you?

[–]evoorhees [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

No. Think about a market economy. Thousands of companies and organizations, all with leaders.

[–]ImmortanSteveredditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And a deep "leadership bench" adds resiliency to the system.

[–]Daolandredditor for 16 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

agree

[–]dsterry [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Wrote a series of posts on decentralization here: https://medium.com/@dsterry