Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100

From: Pieter Wuille <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:40:51 +0200

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Mike Hearn <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Since you keep bringing this up, I'll try to clarify this once again.
>>
>
> I understand the arguments against it. And I think you are agreeing with
> me - Adam is bemoaning the way developers outsource stuff to third party
> services, and suggesting it is relevant to the block size debate. And we
> are saying, no, it's happening because it's easier than doing things in a
> decentralised way.
>

The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a good reason
IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.

But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn't *add* anything, I
cannot reasonably promote it, and that's why I was against getutxos in the
P2P protocol.

-- 
Pieter