BitUsher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1027


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
March 30, 2016, 04:38:45 AM

So why aren't developers supporting classic, XT , or BU ?

because all (legitimate) devs are core devs?


You are suggesting it is a popularity thing that developers are trying to pad their resume with the "principally important" implementation?

This seems highly unlikely because ...

1) When Developers aren't being paid, they are principally concerned with working on items they are technically interested in or that make sense(are feasible). Bitcoin Core doesn't pay any salaries , and all other sources have no restrictions on what implication to work on , in fact the only implementation to bribe developers to work on it is Classic and perhaps Bitpay's Bitcore(not to be confused with Bitcoin core).

2) Developers aren't idiots , if they really believed in Classics roadmap than they would simply move over , miner would instantly agree as they aren't against classic per say, and than Classic would become the reference implementation with their resume padded on the right one.
 
i cant tell if you're confirming or denying my statement

Your statement was a bit ambiguous , so I answered it with the assumption that you suggested developers stayed with core because that was the only legitimate implementation to pad their resume.

If you are insinuated that Gavin and Garzik aren't Experienced or "legitimate" developers , than I would have to disagree with you. The reason they appear to both work on core and classic is principally because their concerns and values aren't aligned with a majority of other developers. I.E... Gavin's own tests reflects that Classic can have a worst case scenario 60% node drop off rate, and he is fine assuming this risk where most other developers don't like this escalated form of centralization where we already have multiple centralization problems that we need to dig out of.