Actually Satoshi was also against "diversity of clients".
“I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.” ~ (Satoshi Nakamoto).
Now the question is which client.
Pandoras box is open. Too late to close it now.
Replies (4)
Interesting. Ty
We've had our test case... and it was indeed not a good idea... for the diverging implementation (i.e. Bitcoin Cash).
This is why neither Knots nor subsequent versions of Core have any incentive to diverge from consensus.
Different consensus rules vs 99% core with a few patches that are directed to mempool policy are not the same thing. And I don't agree with this idea of putting Satoshi or Adam Back on a pedistal like they are some kind of God that we have to take their word as gospel. They are people. You are able to still take all information for youself, think critically, and come to your own conclusions.
To clarify, bcash was a hard fork. Divergent node clients is an entirely different thing. I don't recall we've ever had any diverging clients to any material degree until knots. Closest thing is having some clients updating at different times. We don't definitively know, based on history, if diverging clients will cause problems.
