On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hearn <m...@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.


Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to