Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alt-chain release RFC"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reverting 'why compete' again =)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Reverting 'why compete' again ===
+
== Reverting 'why compete' again ==
 
The 'why compete' section is anti-competitive. It assumes "there should be only one".
 
The 'why compete' section is anti-competitive. It assumes "there should be only one".
  
Line 8: Line 8:
 
[[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234|talk]]) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (GMT)
 
[[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234|talk]]) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (GMT)
  
You are the one reverting/vandalizing here. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (GMT)
+
: You are the one reverting/vandalizing here. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (GMT)
 +
::
 +
:: We disagree on this point. I opened a [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133974.0 thread to discuss this] [[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234|talk]]) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT).

Revision as of 19:25, 30 December 2012

Reverting 'why compete' again

The 'why compete' section is anti-competitive. It assumes "there should be only one".

Alt chains are interesting economical and technical experiments. Some are scams, some are just meangingless ... but some might offer some technical or economical innovation Namecoin and possibly PPCoin. Hell, even Litecoin has some properties that could be more secure than Bitcoin - its 2.5 minutes between confirmations might be inherently safer than Bitcoin.

Luke, please do not revert again without discussing.

Ripper234 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (GMT)

You are the one reverting/vandalizing here. --Luke-jr (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (GMT)
We disagree on this point. I opened a thread to discuss this Ripper234 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT).