[bisq-network/proposals] Investigate alternative implementation for bisq (as basis for V2 / off-chain trading) (#125)

[chimp1984]

> Besides the technical part, things like "Everyone should upgrade to version X before date Y because trading protocol will stop working" don't sound like decentralized governance to me.

Those were exceptional cases due securitity issues (stolen bank account scammer in april) and now due the trade protocol update and the trotection tool which would be otherwise a hard fork. Bisq had only 1 real hard fork ever (in 3.5 years). To support multiple trade protocols in a backward compatible and interoperatible way would cause 10x more effort... 

> We should encourage more independent implementations!

This is wisdom which is true for "normal" engineering but not for concensus based projects. Even Satoshi warned of having multiple Bitcoin implementations and Ethereum showed why he was right with his warning. In a perfect world, yes it would be good but we are in a fast moving under-resourced imperfect world.  

> Not to say we have to stick with JDK10 which is not even LTS and might have security issues.

Tell Oracle to fix their mess with their new release cycles. Forcing people to a new version which is not sufficiently supported by the surrounding infrastructure (java packager is still missing) is not sign of good company strategy.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/125#issuecomment-539123018
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191007/d237c8b0/attachment.html>