You're pulling threads here. There's a lot of people involved. And then they still need to convince wallet developers and miners. And then once there's the move to PoS they'll also need to convince the users and stakers (miners removed from equation).
If you look at what Pieter Wuelle is doing, he's also doing amazing work, but when it comes to make decisions, he goes to the background even if he has an opinion.
I don't see the same thing happening to Vitalik. I'm not saying it's a problem, as Ethereum is a different network with different advantages and disadvantages, but he still looks like the final decision maker to me at this point (which is OK for me).
Nope, and simply I don't believe that matters. If you have a meeting with 100 people that doesn't mean you shouldn't talk just because you organized it. Everyone has a voice and an opportunity to state their ideas and concerns.
Does this happen in other open source software projects? My understanding is that Linus Torvalds was pretty opinionated as well. Linux is better off for it.
Yes, but Bitcoin is special in that it aims to be as decentralized as possible. Ethereum aims to move fast, that’s why it needs a leader. Both are great projects, and both approaches have tradeoffs.
Does Bitcoin still have one main implementation, which is considered the standard in place of a spec? Because ETH2 has four production implementations, developed by different teams in different languages. ETH1 has two in common use, one written in Go and one in Rust. All open source of course.
If Bitcoin still runs on a single implementation then I'd argue its development is more centralized.
He is very productive though, and the other researchers and devs tend to find his ideas convincing.
reply